s,    APPLETON,   OF   MASSACHUSETTS, 


THE  BILL  TO  REDUCE  AND  OTHERWISE  ALTER 


DUTIES    0\    IMPORTS. 


Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Jan.  23,  1833. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  BY  GALES  AND  SEATON. 
1833. 


UCSB   LIBKAKY 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  committee  will  give  me  full  cre- 
dit for  sincerity  when  I  assure  them,  that  it  is  with  extreme  reluctance  that  I 
rise  to  address  them  on  this  occasion.  Certainly,  nothing  in  itself  can  be 
more  appalling  than  the  idea  of  making  a  speech  upon  the  tariff;  which,  of 
necessity,  must  be  expected  to  be  far  more  tedious  than  any  merely  thrice 
told  tale.  But  the  great  amount  of  capital  belonging  to  my  constituents,  in- 
volved in  the  decision  of  this  question,  an  amount  far  greater,  I  apprehend, 
than  is  represented  by  any  other  individual  on  this  floor,  imposes  on  me  a  duty 
which  I  dare  not  avoid.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  principles  embodied  in  the  bill 
on  your  table,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  brought  forward,  give 
to  this  measure  an  importance,  a  solemnity,  which  have  attached  to  few  ques- 
tions which  have  been  agitated  since  the  establishment  of  the  Government.  It 
is,  in  my  estimation,  intimately  connected  with  the  permanent  peace,  happi- 
ness, and  prosperity,  if  not  with  the  very  existence  of  this  Union. 

Now,  sir,  what  are  the  circumstances  under  which  this  measure  is  brought 
forward?  Notwithstanding  the  greater  part  of  the  last,  long  protracted  ses- 
sion, was  occupied  on  this  subject;  notwithstanding  the  result  of  those  labors 
was  the  passage  of  a  bill,  by  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  this  House  almost  un- 
precedented in  any  important  measure,  a  bill  which  was  received  throughout 
the  whole  country  with  all  but  universal  satisfaction,  as  a  fair  compromise, 
as  the  harbinger  of  peace,  of  reduced  excitement;  notwithstanding  all  this, 
we  are  now  informed,  by  authority,  that  we  must  review  our  work;  that 
that  bill  will  not  do;  that  the  whole  matter  must  be  gone  over  again. 

The  measure  before  us  naturally  presents  two  questions:  the  first,  whether 
it  is  necessary,  proper,  or  expedient,  that  we  should  pass  any  bill  on  this  sub- 
ject; the  second,  whether,  on  the  supposition  that  that  question  is  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  this  is  such  a  bill  as  we  ought  to  pass? 

Notwithstanding  the  impatience  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Tennes- 
see, (Mr.  POLK,)  that  we  should  come  to  the  details  of  the  bill,  I  must  first 
discuss  the  preliminary  and  previous  question  —  are  there  any  good  reasons 
why  we  should  pass  any  bill  at  all? 

Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  should  we  disturb  the  act  of  last  July?  Nobody 
dreamed  of  doing  so  before  the  meeting  of  Congress.  All  the  reasons  are  to 
be  found  in  the  communications  to  this  body  from  the  Executive.  Let  us  ex- 
amine them.  The  duty  is  urged  upon  us  of  reducing  the  revenue  to  the  ex- 
penditures of  the  Government;  and  the  first  question  is,  what  relation  do  they 
now  bear  to  each  other? 

The  President  informs  us  in  his  annual  message,  that  "  It  is  expected,  how- 
ever, that,  in  consequence  of  the  reduced  rates  of  duty,  which  will  take  effect 
after  the  3d  of  March  next,  there  will  be  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the  re- 
venue from  customs  in  the  year  1833.  It  will,  nevertheless,  be  amply  suffi- 
cient to  provide  for  all  the  wants  of  the  public  service,  estimated  even  upon  a 
liberal  scale,  and  for  the  redemption  and  purchase  of  the  remainder  of  the 
public  debt." 

Well,  sir,  then  for  1833  there  is  no  difficulty.  Notwithstanding  the  reduc- 
tion in  the  term  of  credit  for  duties  after  the  3d  of  March,  and  the  circum- 
stance that  a  considerable  portion  of  them  will  be  payable  in  cash,  thus  con- 
centrating a  great  part  of  the  revenue  of  two  years,  the  revenue  is  only  ex- 
pected to  be  amply  sufficient  for  the  expenditure,  including  the  reimburse- 
ment of  the  balance  of  the  public  debt,  so  that  for  a  year  to  come,  at  least, 
there  can  be  no  surplus. 


We  are  next  told,  that  "the  final  removal  of  this  great  burthen  [the  public 
debt]  from  our  resources,  affords  the  means  of  further  provision  for  all  the 
objects  of  general  welfare  and  public  defence  which  the  constitution  author- 
izes, and  presents  the  occasion  for  such  further  reduction  in  the  revenue  as 
may  not  be  required  for  them." 

Here  is  a  sentiment  to  which  the  whole  nation  will  respond;  the  happy  era 
of  freedom  from  debt,  presents  an  admirable  opportunity  for  doing  something 
liberal  and  glorious  for  the  general  welfare. 

But,  sir,  without  making  any  calculation  for  these  proposed  objects,  of 
which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  annual  report  for  the  last  year  fur- 
nished us  a  long  list,  have  we  arrived  at  a  point  where  we  can  decide  with 
any  degree  of  certainty  or  confidence  that  the  revenue,  under  the  bill  of  last 
session,  will  exceed  the  proper  and  necessary  expenditure  of  the  Government? 
That  bill  was  framed  for  the  express  purpose,  and  with  the  express  view,  to 
reduce  the  revenue  to  the  amount  of  the  expenditure,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
to  preserve  that  incidental  protection  to  manufactures  which  has  always  formed 
a  part  of  our  revenue  system. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  informs  us  in  his  last  annual  report,  that  he 
still  believes  that  fifteen  millions  (as  estimated  in  the  report  of  1831)  is  a  fair 
estimate  of  the  probable  expenses  of  the  Government,  for  all  objects  other  than 
the  public  debt.  I  shall  assume  it  to  be  so;  and  propose  to  inquire  what  rea- 
son there  is  to  believe  that  the  revenue  under  the  act-of  July  last  will  exceed 
that  sum? 

In  doing  so,  I  put  out  of  the  question  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  as  not 
furnishing  any  permanent  fund  tor  the  expenditure  of  the  Government.  It  is 
well  known  that  a  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  these  sales 
amongst  the  several  States,  passed  the  other  branch  of  the  Legislature  during 
the  last  session,  and  was  postponed  in  this  House,  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
by  a  small  majority,  on  the  ground  that  the  time  was  too  short  for  acting  upon 
so  important  a  matter.  There  are  various  other  projects  for  the  disposition  of 
these  lands;  and  we  are  told,  by  the  same  high  authority  under  which  this  bill 
is  brought  before  us,  that  "it  is  our  true  policy  that  the  public  lands  shall 
cease,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  be  a  source  of  revenue."  It  would,  therefore,  be 
absurd  to  take  them  into  view,  in  an  arrangement  of  the  duties  intended  to  be 
permanent 

Fifteen  millions  are  wanted,  then,  as  revenue  from  imports;  and  the  question 
is,  whether,  under  the  act  of  July  last,  they  will  produce  a  greater  sum?  We 
find  in  the  last  annual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  following 
paragraph:  "  Taking  an  average  of  the  importations,  for  the  last  six  years,  as 
a  probable  criterion  of  the  ordinary  importations  for  some  years  to  come,  the 
revenue  from  customs,  at  the  rates  of  duty  payable  after  the  3d  of  March 
next,  may  be  estimated  at  eighteen  millions  of  dollars,  annually." 

As  the  Secretary  has  not  informed  us  of  the  process  by  which  he  comes  to 
this  result,  its  correctness  can  only  be  tested  by  such  data  as  the  official  docu- 
ments furnish;  and  I  confess  I  cannot,  by  any  calculation  which  I  can  make, 
come  to  the  same  result.  But,  before  presenting  my  own  calculations,  I  must 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  another  circumstance  connected  with 
this  inquiry,  of  a  character  altogether  extraordinary.  The  President,  in  his 
last  annual  message,  urges  the  necessity  of  reducing  the  duties  to  the  revenue 
standard;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  report  accompanying  it, 
makes  use  of  the  following  language,  speaking  of  his  report  of  1831,  communi- 
cated to  this  House  at  their  former  session: 

"  In  the  last  annual  report  on  the  state  of  the  finances,  the  probable  expen- 
ses for  all  objects  other  than  the  public  debt,  were  estimated  at  fifteen  mil-- 
lions. This  is  still  believed  to  be  a  fair  estimate:  and,  if  so,  there  will  be  an 
annual  surplus  of  six  millions  of  dollars. 

"Still  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  reasons  then  presented,  fora  re- 
duction of  the  revenue  to  the  wants  of  the  Government,  I  am  again  urged  by 
a  sense  of  duty,  to  suggest,  that  a  further  reduction  of  six  millions  of  dollars 
be  made,  to  take  effect  after  the  year  1833.  Whether  that  shall  consist  alto- 


gether  of  a  diminution  of  the  duties  on  imports,  or  partly  of  a  relinquishment 
of  the  public  lands,  as  a  source  of  revenue,  as  then  suggested,  it  will  be  for 
the  wisdom  of  Congress  to  determine. 

"Deeply  impressed  with  these  reflections,  which  are  now  rendered  more 
urgent  by  the  reduced  and  limited  demands  of  the  public  service,  /  had  the 
honor,  at  the  lust  session  of  Congress,  to  recommend  a  reduction  of  the  duties 
to  the  revenue  standard.  The  force  of  those,  and  similar  considerations,  and 
of  that  recommendation,  may  be  supposed  to  have  received,  at  that  time,  the 
sanction  of  Congress,  and  to  have  formed  a  motive  of  the  act  of  the  14th  of 
July  last,  notwithstanding  that  it  was  not  then  deemed  practicable  fully  to 
adopt  the  recommendation  of  the  Department ." 

Mr.  Chairman,  on  reading  these  passages  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  I  thought  it  the  language  of  pretty  severe  reprimand,  because 
we  had  failed  to  carry  into  effect  his  recommendations  for  reducing  the  reve- 
nue, and  as  urging  that  circumstance  as  the  .ground  for  requiring  our  further 
action.  In  the  hurry  in  which  that  bill  was  made  to  take  its  final  shape,  it 
was  not  easy  to  calculate  precisely  the  comparative  reduction  which  it  made, 
as  compared  with  the  bill  from  the  Treasury:  my  own  impression,  at  the  time, 
was,  that  it  went  quite  as  far,  or  farther,  than  that  bill.  The  language  of  the 
Secretary,  therefore,  a  good  deal  surprised  me,  as  indicating  a  result  so  differ- 
ent from  my  own  expectation.  It  occurred  to  me,  in  examining  into  this  mat- 
ter, to  inquire,  how  far  we  had  failed  in  our  duty?  how  far  we  had  fallen  short 
of  the  Secretary's  recommendation?  J  will  not  conceal  my  astonishment  at 
the  result;  and,  Sir,  I  ask,  what  will  be  the  astonishment  of  this  House,  should 
it  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  bill  of  July  provides  for  as  great  a  reduction  of 
the  revenue, as  that  furnished  us  by  the  Secretary  himself?  play, more,  sir;  what 
will  they  think,  should  the  reduction  under  our  own  bill  go  beyond  that  pro- 
posed by  the  Secretary  a  full  million  of  dollars?  It  is,  indeed,  passing  strange; 
but  it  is  said  figures  cannot  lie,  and  I  can  bring  them  to  no  other  result,  as  the 
following  table  will  show: 

Reductions  of  duty  by  the  bill  of  14th  July,  1832,  as  compared  with  that  re- 
ported by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  2~th  Jlpril,  1832,  taking  the 
imports  c/1831,  according  to  the  table  annexed  to  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means,  as  furnished  by  the  Treasury  Department,  as  the 
basis . 

Amount.     Rate  of  reduction. 

Woollens,  not  exceeding  35  cts.  sq.  yd.     $1,005,000        5  per  cent.    $50,025 
Worsted  stuff' goods.  3,594,000       10  359,400 

Blankets,  not  exceeding  75  cents  each,  650,000      20 


Silks,  from  India,    '  -  1,804,000       15 

Silks,  other  countries,  8,398,000       15 


130,000 
270,600 
1,259,700 
98,700 


Sail  duck,  -  r  470,000  21 
Manufactures  of  hemp  or  flax,  (deduct- 
ing osnaburgs,  &c.)  4,264,000  10  "  426,000 
Hemp,  unmanufactured,  51,909  cwt.  50  cts.  cwt  25,954 
Coffee,  81,757,386  pounds,  £  cent,  408,785 
Teas,  5,182,867  pounds,  I  "  51,828 
Wines  after  1834,  j  half  present  duty,  296,034 

$3,377,026 

Additions  of  duly  made  by  same  bill. 
Amount.     Rate. 

On  wool  costing  over  8  cents  per  Ib.  $1,234,000      34  per  cent.  $119,560 
Woollen  yarn,        -                                   100,000      30  p.ct.&  4  cts.lb.      50,000 

Woollens  over  35  cents  square  yard,  5,893,000      20  per  cent.  1,178,600 

Flannels,  bockings,  and  baizes,               350,000      20        "  70,000 

Carpetings,                                                 420,000      25        "  105,000 


Sewing  silk,  649,000  20  per  cent.  129,800 

Sewing  silk,  from  India,  -                        52,000  15        "  7,800 

Indigo,         -  -         759,000  15         "  113,852 

Salt,  4,182  bushels,  -                                          Scents,  209.117 

$2,303,729 

Reductions,          -  $3,377,026 

Additions,  -  2,303,729 

Balance  in  favor  of  reduction,    -  $1,073,297 

There  may  be  a  few  other  small  items,  operating  both  ways,  but  which  can- 
not aftect  the  result;  besides,  the  addition  on  raw  wool  is  altogether  greater 
than  will  ever  result  in  practice:  the  importation  of  1831  being  wholly  unpre- 
cedented, and  more  than  three  times  the  amount  imported  in  any  one  previous 
year.  It  may,  therefore,  be  safely  assumed,  that  the  act  of  July,  1832,  re- 
duced the  amount  of  duties  more  than  a  million  of  dollars  below  those  pro- 
posed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  assuming  the  import  of  1831  as  the 
basis.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  if  the  duties  have  not  yet  been  reduced 
to  the  revenue  standard,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
Avho  have  actually  gone  beyond  the  recommendation  of  the  Executive. 

The  question  then  arises,  Have  we  any  good  ground  for  believing  that  we 
shall  be  overburthened  with  an  excess  of  revenue  under  the  existing  law? 

It  is  notorious,  that,  at  the  present  moment,  instead  of  there  being  any 
money  in  the  Treasury,  the  balance  is  actually  the  other  way.  In  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States'  Bank,  it  was  admitted  that  the  Government  would  be  short  at 
least  some  few  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  the  amount  requisite  to  pay  oft' 
the  three  per  cents  on  the  first  of  January,  and  which  it  wished  the  bank  to 
advance  on  interest.  So  that,  at  present,  we  are  in  fact  somewhat  behind 
hand.  Now,  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut,  [Mr.  IXGERSOLL,]  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means,  has  shown  conclusively,  that,  according  to  the 
estimates  of  the  Treasury  Department,  the  balance  in  the  Treasury,  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1835,  wifl  be  less  than  the  appropriations  which  will  then  be 
outstanding.  I  do  not  perceive  that  this  statement  is  at  all  impugned  by  that 
of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  ['Mr.  \EHPLANCK.] 
The  only  difference  appears  to  be,  that  the  latter  thinks  we  ought  to  be  con- 
stantly in  debt  to  the  outstanding  appropriations  some  millions;  trusting  that 
they  will  not.  be  called  for  until  we  can  receive  the  amount  from  new  sources. 
This  appears  to  me  rather  a  niggardly  course,  as  a  permanent  one,  for  a  Gov- 
ernment free  of  debt,  and  with  a  reduced  income,  as  it  leaves  them  no  availa- 
ble fund  for  possible  contingencies. 

The  most  important  question,  however,  is,  whether  the  permanent  revenue, 
under  the  act  of  14th  July,  1832,  will  probably  exceed  the  sum  of  fifteen  mil- 
lions'of  dollars,  the  estimated  necessary  expenditure?  In  recommending  the 
measure  of  reduction  to  us,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  annual  report 
of  December,  1831,  made  use  of  the  following  very  sensible  language: 

"  It  will  be  difficult  precisely  to  graduate  the  revenue  to  the  expenditure. 
The  necessity  of  avoiding  the  possibility  of  a  deficiency  in  the  revenue,  and 
the  perpetual  fluctuation  in  the  demand  and  supply,  render  such  a  task  al- 
most impracticable.  An  excess  of  revenue,  therefore,  under  any  prudent  sys- 
tem of  .duties  may  be  for  a  time  unavoidable;  but  this  can  be  better  ascer- 
tained by  experience,  and  the  evil  obviated,  either  by  enlarging  the  expendi- 
ture tor  the  public  service,  or  by  reducing  the  duties  on  such  articles  as  the 
condition  of  the  country  wti*lld  best  admit." 

I  agree  fully  in  these  sentiments,  and  they  would  seem  to  offer  an  irresisti- 
ble argument  against  disturbing  the  existing  law,  until  tested  by  experience. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  communications  of  the  last  year,  as- 
tlu>  amount  of  imports  for  1830  as  the  basis  of  his  calculation,  be'iiu-; 


70,876,000  dollars.  He  now  assumes  the  average  of  six  years,  including 
1832,  which  gives  86,260,000  dollars,  whilst  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  assume  100,000,000. 

The  importation  of  1830,  was  a  very  small  one.  In  fact,  the  only  correct 
mode  of  estimation  for  the  future  is  to  take  an  average  of  years,  and  in  the 
present  case  the  result  will  be  as  nearly  as  may  be,  the  same,  whether  we  take 
an  average  of  four  or  six  years.  Taking,  then,  the  average  adopted  by  the  Se- 
cretary of  the  Treasury,  as  a  fair  basis  of  calculation, — and  I  shall  attempt  to 
show  that  it  is  the  utmost  which  can  safely  be  taken, — from  the  gross  imports 
of  86,200,000  dollars  must  be  deducted  the  amount  of  foreign  goods  exported, 
which,  on  an  average  of  the  same  period  of  six  years,  amount  to  a  fraction 
over  20,000,000,  leaving  66,200,000  as  the  nett  amount  of  foreign  imports, 
including  those  free  and  those  liable  to  duty,  consumed  in  the  country,  and 
from  which  the  revenue  from  imposts  is  to  be  derived.  The  only  accurate 
mode  of  estircmting  this  revenue,  under  a  change  of  duty,  would  be,  to  take 
the  average  amount  of  each  article,  liable  to  duty  under  the  new  act,  imported 
for  the  last  six  years,  and  deducting  the  quantities  exported,  calculate  the 
duty  on  the -balance,  as  the  average  nett  quantity  consumed.  We  have  been 
furnished  with  no  such  tablej  and,  in  the  absence  of  it,  I  must  take  such 
data  as  we  have.  The  table  annexed  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  ari*d  Means,  gives  twenty-three  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents  per  cent, 
as  the  average  duty  payable  on  the  entire  import,  under  the  act  of  July  last, 
taking  the  importation  of  1831  as  a  basis  of  calculation.  This  ratio  will  give, 
on  the  nett  import  of  66,200,000,  a  revenue  of  15,660,000  dollars,  subject, 
however,  to  a  deduction  for  the  expenses  of  collection,  of  about  a  million  of 
dollars. 

Now.  sir,  I  think  it  can  be  made  apparent,  that  this  mode  of  estimation 
gives  too  high  a  result,  because  the  import  of  1831  embraced  imports  of  cer- 
tain articles  paying  the  highest  rates  of  duty,  vastly  greater  than  the  average 
imports  of  the  same  articles  for  six  years,  or  than  can  safely  be  calculated  on 
for  the  future,  as  the  following: 

Import  of  1831.  Average  of  4  years.  Rate  of  duty. 

Wool  costing  over  8  cents,  1,234,000  400,000  54  per  cent. 

W'oollens  subject  to  high  duties,  6,100,000  4,100,000  50        " 

Cottons,  16,090,000  10,800,000  42         " 

Now,  it  must  be  apparent,  that  this  excessive  importation  in  these  particu- 
lar articles  goes  to  increase  the  rate  of  duty  on  the  whole  importation  very 
materially  over  any  average  of  years  which  can  betaken.  From  a  calculation 
which  I  have  made,  these  items  will  reduce  the  average  rate  of  duty  from 
twenty-three  dollars  sixty-six  cents  to  twenty-two  dollars  forty-four  cents  per 
cent. 5  and  in  this  table  no  allowance  is  made  for  the  reduction  of  one-half 
the  duty  on  wines  after  the  3d  of  March,  1834.  Putting  all  these  things  to- 
gether, I  estimate  the  excess  arising  from  this  mode  of  estimation,  as  amount- 
ing to  at  least  a  million  of  dollars  on  the  nett  revenue,  which  will  reduce  it 
below  14,000,000,  on  the  basis  assumed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

There  is  another  view  of  it.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  communi- 
cated to  this  House  on  the  4th  of  June  last,  through  the  Committee  of  Ma- 
nufactures, a  table,  containing  an  estimate  of  the  duties  which  would  accrue 
under  the  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Adams,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  taking, 
as  a  basis,  the  importation  of  1830,  on  which  the  nett  revenue  Was  calculated 
and  made  to  amount  to  $12,763,000.  The  import  of  that  year  was  a  small 
one,  amounting  to  $70,876,000,  whilst  the  foreign  exports  were  $14,387,000, 
leaving  a  nett  importation  of  $56,489,000,  on  which  the  revenue  was  to  be  le- 
vied. The  bill  of  the  14th  of  'July  last  made  very  considerable  further  re- 
ductions, especially  in  the  articles  of  tea,  coftee,  silks,  linens,  sail  duck,  and 
certain  descriptions  of  woollens,  amounting,  after  making  full  allowance  for 
additions  on  a  few  small  articles,  to  more  than  a  million  of  dollars;  or  allow- 
ing for  a  proportionate  amount  of  debentures,  making  a  deduction  from  the 
nett  revenue,  calculated  in  that  table,  of  full  $800,000,  and  reducing  the  entire 


8 

nett  revenue  on  the  basis  (hen  assumed,  below  12,000,000  of  dollars.  If,  thet*, 
$56,489,000,  the  nett  importation  of  1830,  gives  a  nett  revenue  of  $12,000,000, 
under  the  law  of  last  July,  $66,200,000,  the  nett  average  import  of  the  last 
six  years,  will  give  $14,100,000,  from  which  is  still  to  be  deducted  $300,000 
for  the  reduction  on  wines,  after  March,  1834,  leaving  the  permanent  nett  re- 
venue, on  the  basis  assumed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  $13,800,000. 
This  appears  to  me  the  only  safe  estimate  which  we  can  make  from  data  in 
our  possession. 

It  is  therefore  apparent  that,  instead  of  our  having  any  troublesome  surplus 
of  revenue  over  $15,000,000,  under  the  existing  law,  the  probability  is,  that 
it  will  actually  fall  considerably  short  of  that  sum.  It  is  true  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  assume  $100,000,000  as  the  probable  amount  of  future  im- 
portations, and  have  assumed  that  as  the  safe  basis  of  legislation  in  establish- 
ing a  permanent  system  of  revenue,  presenting  the  singular  anomaly,  that  in 
July  last  we  were  furnished  by  the  Treasury  Department  with  the  basis  of 
of  $70,000,000  as  a  datum  for  legislation,  and  in  the  succeeding  December 
our  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  say  $100,000,000  is  not  too  high  an  es- 
timate, and  all  this  under  the  same  administration.  This  discrepancy  alone 
would  furnish  a  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  not  meddle  with  this  subject 
at  the  present  session.  It  is,  however,  easy  to  show  that  the  assumption 
of  $100,000,000  of  gross  imports,  or  of  $80,000,000  of  nett  imports,  as  the 
basis  of  a  revenue  system,  is  wholly  unsafe  and  unwarrantable.  It  would 
seem  to  have  resulted  from  the  fact,  that  our  official  tables  of  imports  give  the 
amount  for  the  year  ending  30th  September,  1831,  at  $103,191,000,  and  for 
1832  at  $101,036,000,  which  might,  at  first  sight,  give  an  air  of  permanence 
to"  these  high  sums;  but  a  careful  examination  will  show  the  fallacy  which 
would  result  from  doing  so.  Everyone  acquainted  with  commercial  operations, 
is  aware  how  periods  of  depression  and  elevation  of-prices.  of  caution  and 
overtrade,  follow  each  other  in  a  sort  of  irregular  circle  of  years.  This  is  not 
the  occasion  to  discuss  the  causes  of  these  fluctuations;  but  the  fact  is  noto- 
rious. Depression  is  followed  by  caution,  which  leads  to  successful  operations 
which  are  pushed  on  to  full,  and  finally  to  overtrade,  until  another  depression 
completes  the  revolution  of  the  wheel. 

The  return  of  these  periods  is  very  irregular,  but  the  years  1829-30-31  and 
32  are  a  striking  illustration  of  a  complete  revolution  in  the  short  period  of  four 
years.  Every  one  knows  that  the  year  1831  was  a  year  of  great  overtrade;  of 
great  prosperity  in  the  commencement  of  it,  and  great  loss  in  the  end.  Kvery 
one,  therefore,  was  prepared  to  see  a  great  increase  in  our  imports  of  that  year, 
which  expectation  was,  in  a  great  measure,  satisfied  by  finding  our  official 
tables  giving  an  import  of  one  hundred  and  three  millions  tor  1831,  after  seventy 
millions  in  1830.  But  the  fact  that  the  import  of  1832  should  still  come  up 
to  one  hundred  and  one  millions,  was  somewhat  puzzling.  I  was  at  a  loss  to 
account  for  it  myself.  Having  some  recollection  of  the  period  when  the  great 
increase  of  imports  commenced,  and  was  in  operation,  it  occurred  to  me, 
that  the  quarterly  returns  might  throw  some  light  on  this  matter.  Accord- 
ingly I  obtained  from  the  Treasury  Department  the  following  statement  of 
the  aggregate  amount  of  imports  for  the  several  quarters  of  the  years  ending 
30th  September,  1831  and  1832. 

4th  quarter  ending  Dec.   30,   1830,  $20,465,508  to  1831,  21,920,495 

1st        "     of  1831,  Mar.   31,  1831,  22,948.340  "1832,  33,697,120 

2d          "         "         June  30,  1831,  28,083,858  "  1832,  23,045,395 

3d                                Sep.          1831,  31,693,418  "  1832,  22,373,887 

103,191,124  101,036,897 

Here  the  whole  mystery  is  solved:  the  imports  for  the  year  from  1st  April, 
1831,  to  31st  March,  1832,  amount  to  the  enormous  sum  of  $115,394,891;  and 
every  one  conversant  with  the  state  of  trade  during  that  period  must  be 
aware,  that  it  is  precisely  that  in  which  the  overtrade  commenced  and  reached 
its  crisis.  If  any  doubt  the  fact  of  this  overtrade  in  the  year  1831,  I  would 


refer  them  to  the  series  of  questions  propounded  by  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  [Mr.  CAMBRELENG,]  to  the  President  of  the  United  States'  Bank,  dur- 
ing the  last  session,  the  thief  object  of  which  was  to  show  that  this  great  over- 
trade was  owing  to  the  increased  issues  of  the  United  States'  Bank.  The 
fact  of  the  overtrade  was  admitted,  and  the  difference  between  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  and  the  President  of  the  Bank  was  simply,  that  the  former 
charged  the  bank  with  having  caused  the  overtrade,  by  an  improper  increase 
of  its  circulation,  whilst  Mr.  Biddle  insisted  that  the  bank  had  merely  met  the 
demand  for  an  increased  circulation,  resulting  from  an  increase  of  trade.  .  It 
is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  the  question  which  party  was  in  the  right.  It 
is  unquestionably  true,  that  overtrade  and  a  greatly  expanded  bank  circulation 
are  always  coincident;  they  act  and  re-act  upon  each  other,  and  it  is  not  always 
easy  to  say  which  is  cause  and  which  is  effect.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  here 
was  a  year  of  great  overtrade,  which  has  greatly  increased  the  official  returns 
of  imports  for  the  years  1831  and  1832,  and  that  tho*e  returns  form  no 
proper  basis  of  calculation  for  the  future,  without  joining  with  them  the  two 
preceding  years  of  restricted  importation,  1829  and  1830.  If  other  evidence 
be  required  of  the  danger  of  taking  the  years  1831  and  1832,  as  a  criterion  for 
the  future,  it  may  be  found  by  a  reference  to  our  exports.  It  is  evident  that, 
there  must  be  a  pretty  near  correspondence  between  our  domestic  exports,  and 
the  nett  amount  of  our  foreign  imports,  which  ore  received  in  exchange  for 
them.  Accordingly,  we  find  the  exports  of  domestic  produce  for  six  years, 
from  1825  to  1830,  average  $57,400.000;  whilst  the  imports  of  foreign  goods  for 
the  same  period,  after  deducting  foreign  goods  exported,  average  $60,200,000. 
Now  the  exports  of  domestic  produce  for  the  years  1831  and  1832,  average 
$62,175,000;  whilst  the  imports  of  foreign  goods,  after  deducting  those  export- 
ed, average  $79,900,000;  making  an  excess,  from  the  proportion  which  our 
imports  bear  to  exports,  for  the  preceding  six  years,  of  about  thirty  millions 
of  dollars;  that  is  to  say,  our  imports  have  outrun  or  gone  in  advance  of  our 
exports  that  sum,  and  must  wait  for  the  latter  to  come  up  with  them.  We 
accordingly  perceive  a  great  falling  ofTin  the  imports  of  the  last  twofquarters  of 
the  year  ending  September  30,  1832 — five  millions  in  the  first,  and  nine  mil- 
lions in  the  second,  as  compared  with  the  corresponding  quarters  of  1831.  This 
falling  off  must  continue  much  longer,  unless  this  balance  against  us  is  paid 
for  by  loans.  We  have,  in  fact,  made  loans  to  the  amount  of  twelve  millions 
on  this  account — seven  millions  by  the  bank  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  nego- 
tiated by  the  Barings,  and  five  millions  by  the  United  States'  bank  against  the 
three  per  cents;  the  last,  to  be  sure,  is  only  temporary,  and  is  only  postponing 
the  day  of  payment  fyr  a  year.  It  is  very  true  that  some  gentlemen  calculate 
on  a  great  increase  of  importation,  in  consequence  of  a  reduction  of  duties,  and 
a  consequent  increase  of  the  revenue:  but  I  cannot  agree  with  them  in  the  lat- 
ter result:  the  increase  will  be  in  free  goods,  or  goods  paying  little  duty,  and 
the  probability  is,  there  will  be  a  corresponding  diminution  in  commodities 
paying  high  duties;  so  that  the  revenue  is  as  likely  to  be  diminished,  as  in- 
creased. 

I  trust,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  have  made  it  apparent  that  the  basis  of  an 
average  of  six  years,  as  adopted  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  is  as  high  aa 
amount  of  imports  as  it  is  safe  to  assume  in  relation  to  the  revenue — and  that 
we  have  no  ground  for  believing  that  the  revenue  will, for  years  to  come, exceed 
fifteen  millions  of  dollars.  I  am  myself  fully  of  opinion  that  it  will  fall  short 
of  that  sum,  and  thus  the  operations  of  the  treasury,  for  three  years  to  come, 
will  be  very  much  cramped,  instead  of  our  being  burthened  with  an  excess. 
There  is  no  good'  reason,  then,  why  we  should  pass  this  bill  on  the  alleged 
ground  of  a  necessity  of  reducing  the  revenue  to  the  expenditure  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. That  has  been  done  already. 

But,  sir,  there  are  other  ominous  giyings  out  in  the  official  communications. 
The  President,  in  his  late  message,  after  recommending  a  proper  adaptation 
of  the  revenue  to  the  \yants  of  the  Government,  proceeds:  "  In  effecting  this 
adjustment,  it  is  due,  in  justice,  to  the  interest  of  the  different  State*,  and 
even  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union  itself,  that  the  protection  afforded  by 


10 

existing  laws  to  any  branches  of  the  national  industry,  should  not  exceeti 
what  may  be  necessary  to  counteract  the  regulations  of  foreign  nations,  and 
to  secure  a  supply  of  those  articles  of  manufacture  essential  to  the  national 
independence  aud  safety  in  time  of  war.  If,  upon  investigation,  it  shall  be 
found,  as  it  is  believed  it  will  be,  that  the  legislative  protection  granted  to 
any  particular  interest  is  greater  than  is  indispensably  requisite  for  these  ob- 
jects, I  recommend  that  it  be  gradually  diminished:  and  that,  as  far  as  may 
be  consistent  with  these  objects,  the  whole  scheme  of  duties  be  reduced  to 
the  revenue  standard  as  soon  as  a  just  regard  to  the  faith  of  the  Government, 
and  to  the  preservation  of  the  large  capital  invested  in  establishments  of  do- 
mestic industry,  will  permit." 

These  communications  have  been,  not  inaptly,  compared  to  the  responses  of 
the  Delphic  oracle,  which  every  party  was  able,  to  interpret  according  to  his 
wishes?.  So  here  the  text  admits  of  a  liberal  or  narrow  construction;  it  may  be 
made  to  cover  the  whole  ground  of  the  American  System,  or  exclude  it  alto- 
gether. But  other  intimations  of  a  more  alarming  character  follow. 

"  Those  who  take  an  enlarged  view  of  the  condition  of  our  country  must  be 
satisfied  that  the  policy  of  protection  must  be  ultimately  limited  to  those  arti- 
cles of  domestic  manufacture  which  are  indispensable  to  our  safely  in  time  of 
war.  Within  this  scope,  on  a  reasonable  scale,  it  is  recommended  by  every 
consideration  of  patriotism  and  duty,  which  will  doubtless  always  secure  to  it 
a  liberal  and  efficient  support.  But,  beyond  this  object,  we  have  already  seen 
the  operation  of  the  system  productive  of  discontent." 

There  is  no  great  ambiguity  here;  and  the  plain  English  of  it  is,  that  the 
whole  system  of  protection  to  American  industry  must  be  swept  by  the  board. 
That  system,  which  for  sixteen  years  has  been  acquiring  stability  and  strength; 
which  has  brought  the  country  to  a  state  of  prosperity  of  which  the  annals  of 
the  world  afford  no  parallel — this  whole  fabric  is  to  be  swept  away  with  a 
haste  and  rapidity  unexampled  in  our  legislation. 

Is  it  pretended  that  the  system  is  not  a  wise  one  in  itself?  No,  sir,  not  that 
I  am  aware  of.  This  very  Congress  have,  by  a  l.arge  majority,  affirmed  the 
wisdom  of  the  system;  they  have,  in  public  estimation,  given  assurance  to  (he 
system  by  the  act  of  last  July.  And  yet  this  same  Congress  are  now  called 
upon  to  retract  all  their  opinions  upon  this  subject,  and,  at  the  bidding  of  Ex- 
ecutive power,  to  place  their  names  on  record,  in  black  and  white,  in  ever- 
lasting, if  not  in  damning,  contrast  with  themselves. 

Can  such  things  be?  Is  this  a  Government  of  the  people?  a  Government  of 
public  opinion?  A  distinguished  gentleman  of  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  McDur- 
FIE,]  in  a  speech  of  the  last  session,  drew  a  most  glowing  picture  of  the 
oppression  and  tyranny  growing  out  of  the  democratic  form  of  Government — 
a  Government  of  majorities,  of  King  Demos.  Methinks  the  form  of  our  Go- 
vernment is  changed.  It  seems  to  be  a  perfect  monocracy.  We  are  living 
under  a  new  dynasty;  and,  perhaps  before  the  close  of  the  session,  the  same 
gentleman  may  favor  us  with  an  eulogium  on  King  Monos.  Is  it  not  so,  sir? 
May  we  not,  with  equal  truth,  ask,  in  the  language  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Cassius  by  the  great  dramatic  poet,  in  reference  to  Julius  Cassar: 

"  When  could  they  say  before,  who  talked  of  us, 
"  That  our  wide  walks  encompassed  but  one  man?" 

What  is  the  ground  for  this  change?  What  is  the  pretext?  It  is  said  the 
South  is  discontented;  that  the  South  considers  the  tariff  unequal  in  its  opera- 
tion, perhaps  unconstitutional.  South  Carolina  has  placed  herself  in  an  atti- 
tude of  opposition  to  the  Government;  and  the  Atlantic  States  south  of  the 
Potomac  will  join  her,  and  secede  from  the  Union,  unless  the  tariff  system 
is  repealed  instanter.  This  is  the  ground,  and  the  whole  ground,  on  which  it 
is  expected  that  this  bill  will  pass.  But  does  this  House  believe  that  this  sys- 
tem acts  oppressively  and  injuriously  upon  any  portion  of  the  Union?  The 
admission  would  be  an  admission  of  their  own  shame,  unless  some  new  light, 
some  new  conviction,  has  burst  in  upon  them.  If  that  be  the  case,  it  must 
have  been  by  intuition.  The  allegation  is,  that  the  system  operates  unequally 


11 

and  injuriously  upon  the  States  employing  slave  labor,  whilst  it  is  beneficial 
anil  advantageous  to  the  States  employing  free  labor.  And  what,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, is  the  argument  to  support  this  proposition?  In  the  whole  discussion  of 
the  last  session,  1  heard  no  argument  used  to  establish  this  partial  injury, 
but  the  argument  invented  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr. 
McDuFFiEJ  and  which  has  since,  under  the  influence  of  that  gentleman's 
eloquence,  been  adopted  by  the  State  of  South  Carolina  as  the  ground  of  her 
proceedings.  It  may,  therefore,  now  be  properly  called  the  South  Carolina 
theory.  That  theory  is,  that  the  farmers  and  planters  who  produce  the  articles 
which  are  exported  from  a  nation  bear  the  whole  burthen  of  the  tax  levied  in 
impost  duties  on  the  commodities  imported  into  that  nation,  whether  they 
consume  any  portion  of  those  commodities  or  not;  in  other  words,  that  a  duty 
of  forty  per  cent,  on  imports  consumed  in  the  north  takes  forty  bales  of  cotton 
out  of  every  hundred  produced  by  the  cotton  planter.  This  illustration  has 
also  given  it  the  name  of  the  '"  forty  bale  theory." 

I  am  not  going  to  discuss  the  argument  by  which  that  theory  is  supported; 
that  was  done  sufficiently  at  the  last  session.  But,  I  ask,  if  there  are  ten 
members  of  this  House — perhaps  there  are  ten — but  I  boldly  ask,  are  there 
twenty  who  believe  in  that  argument?  Nay,  more,  are  there  twenty  men  in 
this  nation,  north  of  the  Potomac,  having  any  acquaintance  with  commercial 
operations,  or  any  knowledge  of  the  science  of  political  economy,  who  do  not 
consider  the  theory  a  mere  rhapsody  of  metaphysical  sophistries?  All  may 
not  be  able  to  unravel  the  web  so  ingeniously  put  together;  but  all  perceive 
that  it  is,  and  must  be,  false. 

Now,  I  aver,  that  I  know  of  no  other  argument  which  goes  to  show  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  to  be  unequal  in  its  character,  but  this  South  Carolina 
or  forty  bale  theory.  The  supporters  of  that  theory  expressly  admit  that  its 
supposed  inequality  rests  solely  on  that  argument;  and  that,  if  impost  duties 
fall  exclusively  on  the  consumers  of  the  foreign  commodities,  there  is  no  in- 
equality in  the  case.  The  only  other  argument  entitled  to  any  consideration 
is  this:  that  certain  products  and  manufactures  of  the  North,  consumed  in 
the  South,  are  enhanced  in  price  by  the  protecting  tariff,  and  thus  operate  to 
their  especial  injury.  But,  to  my  apprehension,  this  argument  resolves  itself 
into  the  general  question  of  general,  expediency,  so  often  discussed  and  so 
often  decided  in  both  branches  of  the  National  Legislature.  If  Virginia  pays 
an  extra  price  for  Pennsylvania  iron,  so  does  New  England.  If  Virginia  pays 
an  extra  price  for  New  England  woollens,  so  does  every  man  in  New  England 
itself.  The  great  interest  of  New  England,  as  of  all  the  other  sections  of  the 
Union,  is  agricultural;  and  I  should  be  glad  to  be  informed  how  the  wheat 
grower  of  Virginia  suffers  more  from  the  system  than  the  wheat  grower  of  New 
York,  or  the  grazier  of  Massachusetts;  all  of  whose  productions  are  regulated 
by  the  price  in  foreign  markets,  as  well  as  that  of  the  cotton  planter. 

The  question  of  the  advantages  of  a  system  of  free  trade,  or  of  duties  pro- 
tecting home  productions,  is  a  question  of  theory  against  practice.  Free  trade 
has  been  very  well  argued  by  speculative  writers,  on  grounds  which  might 
prove  very  correct  in  a  world  destined  to  universal  peace,  and  actuated  by  a 
spirit  of  universal  philanthropy.  But,  unhappily,  these  speculative  theorists 
have  not  made  the  slightest  progress  in  persuading  their  own  nations  to  adopt 
their  views  in  practice.  And  is  there  an  individual  on  this  floor  who  will  have 
the  temerity  to  maintain  that  the  opening  our  ports  on  the  principles  of  free 
trade  to  other  nations  closing  their  doors  upon  our  productions,  would  not  be 
to  prostrate  our  industry  and  prosperity  at  the  foot  of  foreign  nations?  to  sub- 
mit to  pay  them  precisely  what  tribute  they  choose  to  levy  upon  us? 

I  except,  however,  from  this  inquiry  the  gentlemen  of  the  South  Carolina 
school,  and  yet  they  are"  the  last  who  can,  with  any  consistency,  deny  the 
general  expediency  of  the  protecting  system,  because  one  of  their  strongest 
arguments  to  show  the  inequality  of  the  system,  is,  the  statement  of  the  fact, 
that  the  whole  North  is  flourishing  in  unprecedented  prosperity  under  the  in- 
iluencc.'  of  this  system,  from  which  circumstance,  the. truly  logical  inference  is 
drawn,  by  a  process  of  argument  equally  logical,  that  (hi*  prosperity  must,  of 


12 

necessity,  be  subtracted  from  their  own.  The  most  that  can  be  said  of  any 
real  inequality  in  the  system  is  this,  that,  whilst  the  intended  and  expected 
effect  of  attracting  capital  into  the  protected  branches  of  industry  has  been 
operative  and  effectual  in  the  Middle  and  Northern  States,  the  same  result 
has  not  been  produced  in  those  of  the  South.  The  reason  must  be,  either  be- 
cause the  profits  of  slave  cultivation  are  so  great  as  to  leave  no  inducement  to 
employ  capital  in  manufactures,  or  that  the  effect  of  slave  labor  is  to  indispose 
the  white  population  to  that  persevering  and  thrifty  industry  necessary  to  the 
prosecution  of  these  branches,  and  on  which  the  prosperity  of  the.  North  de- 
pends. It  is  no  answer  to  this  argument  to  say  that  slave  labor  cannot  be  em- 
ployed in  manufactures.  Suppose  it  cannot,  there  is  white  labor  enough.  The 
white  population  of  the  States  who  complain  most  of  this  system,  is  upwards 
of  two  millions. 

In  fact,  however,  although  not  acting  so  quickly,  the  system  seems  begin- 
ning to  act  effectually  in  many  of  those  States.  Maryland  was  amongst  the 
first  to  adopt,  and  took  the  lead  in  supporting,  this  system-  Virginia,  I  am 
told,  is  proceeding  rapidly  in  the  establishment  of  manufactures.  I  understand 
several  cotton  mills  are  building,  as  well  as  in  operation,  both  in  Richmond 
and  Petersburg. 

I  am  informed  by  an  honorable  gentleman  of  Georgia,  (Mr.  CLAYTON,) 
that  twelve  or  fifteen  cotton  mills  are  building  in  that  State,  to  share  in  those 
profits,  which,  at  the  last  session,  he  informed  us  he  was  making  himself  in 
that  business.  Several  establishments  are  making  in  Louisiana,  and  I  believe 
also  in  Mississippi.  And  it  would  seem  that  the  fanatics,  who  are  hurrying 
South  Carolina  to  her  ruin,  are  acting  under  the  conviction  that  the  system, 
left  to  itself,  would  soon  work  itself  into  favor,  even  in  their  own  region. 

The  only  ground,  after  all,  on  which  the  immediate  and  hurried  action  of  this 
House  can  be  justified  is,  that  it  is  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
Good  Heaven!  Mr.  Chairman,  has  it  come,  to  this?  Has  the  national  bond  of 
union,  under  which  every  citizen  of  these  United  States  has  grown  proud, 
even  to  a  by-word  amongst  those  foreigners  who  visit  us,  become  so  weak, 
that  it  cannot  be  trusted  to  hold  together  for  a  single  twelvemonth?  Impos- 
sible! Nothing  in  private  life  is  more  hazardous  than  to  act  under  the  influ- 
ence of  panic.  It  can  hardly  be  less  so  in  legislating  upon  the  vital  interests 
of  a  great  and  growing  empire.  Can  it  be  strengthening  the  Union,  for  this 
Legislature,  before  the  echo  of  the  President's  message  can  return  upon  the 
capitol  from  the  distant  mountains,  to  do  an  act  which  shall  be  felt  in  every 
vein  and  artery  of  the  body  politic?  Can  it  be  preserving  the  Union,  for  its 
chosen  guardians  to  abandon  in  affright  a  system  which  they  were  sent  here 
to  protect?  a  system  which  they  themselves,  and  a  vast  majority  of  this  na- 
tion, believe  to  be  the  source  of  their  present,  and  essential  to  their  future, 
prosperity?  Can  peace  and  safety  result  from  such  a  course?  Can  it  pre- 
serve the  Union,  or  make  it  worth  preserving,  for  this  Legislature,  in  this 
state  of  agitation,  to  pass  this  bill;  and  by  the  stroke  of  the  pen,  by  which  it 
becomes  a  law,  to  prostrate  private  property,  with  a  recklessness,  it  not  wan- 
tonness, which  has  no  parallel  in  the  legislation  of  civilized  nations? 

Will  it  promote  the  cause  of  free  Government  in  Europe,  for  this  their  mo- 
del, their  pattern — in  wicked,  midnight  haste,  to  pass  an  act,  annihilating  pri- 
vate property  with  less  reluctance  or  consideration,  as  1  verily  believe,  than  can 
befound  in  theannals.of  the  petty  despotisms  of  Asia  or  Africa?  Sir,  there  isone 
evil  greater  than  disunion  itself:  it  is  to  make  the  Union  not  worth  preserving. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  insensible  to  the  dangers  which  threaten  the  repub- 
lic. One  of  the  States  of  this  Union  is  in  rebellion — peaceable  rebellion — or, 
if  that  word  sound  too  harsh,  be  it  a  crisis— or,  to  be  more  strictly  correct,  South 
Carolina  is  in  a  state  of  nullification.  But  is  there  any  danger  so  imminent  in 
this?  She  has  done  what  it  was  apparent  twelve  months  ago  she  would  do. 
She  has  put  in  practice,  as  a  remedy,  a  political  theory  nearly  as  absurd  as  the 
system  of  political  economy  on  which  she  founds  her  grievances.  But,  sir,  in 
my  apprehension,  the  danger  of  the  present  crisis  is  past — nullification  is  nul- 
lified. Th«  Pre«id<-nt*s  proclamation,  ratified  a*  it  has  been,  by  one  uiiiver- 


13 
. 

sal  burst  of  public  opinion,  has  killed  it.  It  is  true,  South  Carolina  is  raising 
troops;  but  does  any  one  apprehend  danger  to  the  Union  from  South  Carolina, 
by  force?  with  a  white  population  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  equally 
divided,  and  holding  in  her  bosom  three  hundred  thousand  slaves?  No,  Mr. 
Chairman,  no  one  apprehends  danger  from  South  Carolina  alone.  No  one 
supposes  that  South  Carolina  will  undertake  to  set  herself  up  as  a  nation  by 
herself.  She  is  acting,  and  we  shall  act,  under  other  views.  Our  sense  of 
danger,  and  the  real  danger,  lies  in  the  circumstance  that,  throughout  all  the 
Atlantic  States  owning  property  in  slaves,  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Missis- 
sippi, there  is  a  strong  feeling  of  common  interest;  a  strong  sympathy  for  South 
Carolina;  a  violent  clamor;  a  great  excitement  against  the  protective  system; 
an  idea,  more  or  less  general,  but  certainly  of  a  large  majority,  that  the  sys- 
tem is  unequal  in  its  operation,  and  injurious  to  them.  Nor  is  it  surprising,  that 
thisstate  of  feeling  should  exist.  Whoever  listened  to,  or  has  read  the  speeches 
which  were  delivered  in  this  House,  during  the  lastsession  of  Congress,  by  a  cer- 
tain party,  and  which* were  dispersed,  thick  as  autumnal  leaves,  through  the 
whole  region  of  the  South,  with  other  incendiary  tracts,  all  calculated,  if  not 
intended,  to  rouse  the  whole  South  to  madness,  cannot  be  surprised  at  the  re- 
sult. We  were  told  in  this  hall,  that  the  protective  system  was  a  vampire,  by 
which  the  North  was  sucking  the  warm  blood  of  the  South;  that  the  free  States 
were  prairie  wolves,  gorging  their  jaws  by  instinct  in  the  blood  of  the  South, 
whilst  oppression,  robbery,  and  plunder,  were  sounded  to  every  note  of  the 
gamut.  Is  the  result  surprising?  Those  who  could  not  understand  the  argu- 
ment on  which  their  wrongs  were  founded,  could  understand  the  application; 
and,  coming  from  such  sources,  can  it  be  wondered  at,  that  the  existence  of 
these  wrongs  should  be  believed? 

Now,  I  suppose  it  will  be  conceded,  that  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
States  north  of  the  Potomac,  and  of  the  West,  believe  the  system  of  protection 
to  be  one  of  sound  policy;  that  the  practical  operation  of  it  has  been  beneficial 
to  them  and  injurious  to  none;  that  the  prostration  of  the  system  will  inflict 
real  injury  on  them,  by  paralyzing  their  industry,  without  provingof  any  benefit 
to  the  South;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  will  suffer  in  the  general  injury. " 
This  is  the  state  of  the  case.  It  certainly  presents  matter  for  grave  consider- 
ation, for  wise  and  deliberate  counsel.  But  dp  we  lessen  the  danger  by  re- 
fusing to  look  it  calmly  in  the  face?  The  danger  is  disunion.  Shall  we  strength- 
en this  Union,  and  lessen  .this  danger,  by  yielding  up  what  a  majority  of  this 
House,  in  their  consciences  believe, what  a  majority  of  this  nation  believe,  to  be 
a  great  national  good,  in  complaisance  to  opinions  which  we  believe  to  be  whol- 
ly erroneous?  That  such  is  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  this  House,  stands  on 
record  in  the  journals  of  the  last  session,  under  the  sanction  and  responsibility 
with  which  we  perform  the  duties  of  our  high  trust.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, I  also  ask,  in  the  language  of  the  President,  what  shall  be  done? 
Shall  we  sacrifice  great  interests  under  the  influence  of  panic?  or  shall  we  ex- 
amine fearlesly  into  the  nature  of  the  malady,  and  ascertain  if  it  be  capable  of 
a  permanent  cure? 

It  is  apparent  that  this  great  difference  of  opinion  grows  out  of  one  great 
circumstance  in  the  condition  of  the  different  sections  of  the  country — the 
existence  and  non-existence  of  slavery.  The  great  question  is,  whether  this 
circumstance  presents  any  real  incompatibility  or  difference  of  interests,  so 
as  to  make  a  system  which  is  favorable  to  one  section  actually  injurious  to 
another?  This  is  rather  a  question  of  fact.  I  am  favorably  inclined  to  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr.  BUUGES,]  or  something 
of  similar  character,  for  a  large  committee,  or  for  commissioners,  to  inquire 
into  the  actual  operations  of  the  tariff;  to  bring  the  sufferings  of  the  South  into 
something  like  a  tangible  shape:  to  give  us  facts,  of  which  we  have  so  little, 
in  the  place  of  theory,  of  which  we  have  so  much.  I  should  like  an  inquiry 
into  the  state  and  effect  of  manufactures,  thorough  and  searching;  like  those 
which  are  gone  into  before  committees  of  the  British  Parliament  on  all  ques- 
tions affecting  great  interests. 

Then,  sir,  there  is  another  consideration  connected  with  this  subject    The 


14 

tariff' is  put  forward  as  the  great,  the  only,  ground  of  complaint;  but  is  it  the 
only  ground  of  apprehension,  of  fear?  Sir,  it  is  idle  to  disguise  it  Every 
man  who  hears  me  knows  that  there  is  a  question  behind  the  tariff,  to  which 
that  is  but  as  dust  in  the  balance;  a  question  which  includes  what  may 
emphatically  be  called  the  Southern  interest — the  Southern  feeling;  which 
includes,  also,  the  fear  and  apprehension  of  the  South,  that  the  General  Go- 
vernment may  one  day  interfere  with  the  right  of  property  in  slaves.  This  is 
the  bond  which  unites  the  South  in  a  solid  phalanx;  this  is  the  key  to  their 
jealousy  of  allowing  a  liberal  construction  of  the  constitution  in  relation  to  the 
powers  of  the  General  Government.  Why  does  Virginia  pass  weeks  together 
in  discussing  the  abstract  right  of  secession  from  the  Union?  Does  she  wish 
to  secede?.  No,  sir;  except  in  one  event.  She  wishes  to  keep  the  door  open, 
in  case  the  question  of  emancipation  should  ever  be  seriously  brought  before 
Congress.  There  lie  on  the  tables  before  you  certain  resolutions  of  the  State 
of  Georgia,  proposing  a  Convention  of  the  States  for  certain  enumerated  pur- 
poses. I  noticed,  when  these  resolutions  were  reported  in  the  Georgia  Le- 
gislature, an  additional  proposition  for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  viz: 
what  further  security  should  be  obtained  for  a  certain  description  of  property. 
This  was  struck  out,  by  unanimous  consent;  and  why?  Was  it  that  this  last 
consideration,  like  the  postscript  to  a  letter,  was  not  considered  important? 
Not  at  all;  but  it  was  not  thought  expedient  to  express  any  distrust  of  the 
security  under  the  present  constitution.  For  myself,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  be- 
lieve the  South  are  unduly  sensitive  on  this  point.  I  know  of  no  Northern 
statesman  who  calls  in  question  the  inviolability  of  the  property  in  slaves, 
under  the  constitution.  I  am  sure  the  people  of  the  State  which  I  have  the 
honor,  in  part,  to  represent,  have  no  more  disposition  than  they  believe  they 
have  right  to  interfere  in  this  matter  in  any  way.  But,  sir,  this  extreme  sen- 
sitiveness and  apprehension,  on  the  part  of  the  South,  on  this  matter,  is  an 
element  too  important  to  be  overlooked,  in  adjusting  their  supposed  grievances. 

There  is  another  question.  Does  the  South  really  wish  the  continuance  of 
the  Union?  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  attachment  of  the  mass  of  the  people  of 
'the  South  to  the  Union,  as  well  as  of  every  other  section  of  the  country.  But 
it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  certain  leading  politicians  have  not  formed 
bright  visions  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  This  would  seem  to  be  the  only 
rational  ground  for  accounting  for  the  movements  in  South  Carolina.  A  South- 
ern confederacy,  of  which  South  Carolina  should  be  the  central  State,  and 
Charleston  the  commercial  emporium,  may  present  some  temptations  for  in- 
dividual ambition. 

And  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  having  shown  what  appear  to  me  sufficient  rea- 
sons why  we  should  not  act  at  all  at  present,  I  proceed  to  the  inquiry,  whe- 
ther the  proposed  bill  is  such  a  one  as  we  ought  to  pass,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  public  exigency  requires  us  to  pass  any  bill  at  all.  Its  great  and 
leading  character  is,  that  it  strikes  a  fatal  blow  at  the  two  great  branches  of 
manufacture — of  wool  and  of  cotton;  that  it  will  annihilate  an  immense  amount 
of  capital,  invested  in  mills  and  machinery,  now  employed  in  those  manu- 
factures. 

Before  going  into  details,  however,  I  must  advert  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  public  mind  has  been  prepared  for  this  great  sacrifice  of  capital.  I  was 
•  forcibly  struck,  the  other  day,  with  the  story  told  us  by  an  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  WICKXIFFE.]  of  a  man  who  had  determined  the 
destruction  of  a  harmless  animal,  and,  unwilling  to  perpetrate  the  deed  him- 
self, said  he  would  accomplish  his  purpose  by  giving  it  a  bad  name. 

Much  in  the  same  way,  it  appears  to  me,  has  the  public  mind  been  prepared 
for  the  sacrifice  of  the  manufacturers.  Sir,  we  have  all  seen,  for  nearly  a 
twelvemonth,  the  scurrilous  newspapers  venting  their  abuse  upon  this  interest — 
but  they  are  unworthy  my  notice.  The  first  indication  from  authority  is  to 
be  found  in  the  Veto  message  returning  the  United  States  Bank  bill,  as 
follows: 

"  Experience  should  teach  us  wisdom.  Most  of  the  difficulties  our  Govern- 
ment now  encounters,  and  most  of  the  dangers  which  impend  over  our  Union, 


15 

have  sprung  from  an  abandonment  of  the  legitimate  objects  of  Government  by 
pur  National  legislation,  and  the  adoption  of  such  principles  as  are  embodied 
in  this  act.  Many  of  our  rich  men  have  not  been  content  with  equal  protec- 
tion and  equal  benefits,  but  have  besought  us  to  make  (hem  richer  by  act  of 
Congress.  By  attempting  to  gratify  their  desires,  ive  have,  in  the  results  of 
our  legislation,  arrayed  section  against  section,  interest  against  interest,  and 
man  against  man,  in  a  fearful  commotion,  u-hich  threatens  to  shake  the  foun- 
dation of  our  Union-  It  is  time  to  pause  in  our  career,  to  review  our  prin- 
ciples, and,  if  possible,  revive  that  devoted  patriotism  and  spirit  of  compro- 
mise which  distinguished  the  sages  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  fathers  of  our 
Union.  If  we  cannot,  at  once,  injustice  to  interests  vested  under  improvident 
legislation*  make  our  Government  what  it  ought  to  be,  we  can,  at  least,  take 
a  stand  against  all  new  grants  of  monopolies  and  exclusive  privileges,  against 
any  prostitution  of  our  Government  to  the  advancement  of  the  few  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  many,  and  in  favor  of  compromise  and  gradual  reform  in  our 
code  of  laws  and  system  of  political  economy." 

This  certainly  is  ominous  language,  although  somewhat  obscure.  The  mes- 
sage to  this  Congress,  at  the  present  session,  speaks  somewhat  plainer: 

"But  those  who  have  vested  their  capital  in  manufacturing  establishments 
cannot  expect  that  the  people  will  continue,  permanently,  to  pay  high  taxes 
for  their  benefit,  when  the  money  is  not  required  for  any  legitimate  purpose 
in  the  administration  of  the  Government.  In  some  sections  of  the  Republic, 
its  influence  is  deprecated  as  tending  to  concentrate  wealth  into  a  few  hands, 
and  as  creating  those  germs  of  dependence  and  vice  which,  in  other  countries, 
have  characterized  the  existence  of  monopolies,  and  proved  so  destructive  ry 
liberty  and  the  general  good." 

But  the  most  extraordinary  demonstrations,  in  this  particular,  may  be  found 
in  the  communications  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  That  officer,  in  his 
report  on  the  finances,  made  in  December,  1831,  presented  the  following  just 
and  statesman-like  views: 

"  To  distribute  the  duties  in  such  a  manner,  as  far  as  that  may  be  practica- 
ble, as  to  encourage  and  protect  the  labor  of  the  people  of  the  tTnited  States 
from  the  advantages  of  superior  skill  and  capital,  and  the  rival  preferences  of 
foreign  countries;,  to  cherish  and  preserve  those  manufactures  which  have 
grown  up  under  our  own  legislation,  which  contribute  to  the  national  wealth, 
and  are  essential  to  our  independence  and  safety,  to  the  defence  of  the  coun- 
try, to  the  supply  of  its  necessary  wants,  and  to  the  genera!  prosperity,  is  con- 
sidered lobe  an  indispensable  duty.  The  vast  amount  of  property  employed 
in  the  Northern,  Western,  and  Middle  portions  of  the  Union,  upon  the  faith 
of  our  own  system  of  laws,  and  in  which  the  interests  of  every  branch  of  our 
industry  are  involved,  could  not  be  immediately  abandoned  without  the  most 
ruinous  consequences." 

And  yet,  sir,  in  his  report  just  made  us  at  the  commencement  of  this  ses- 
sion, we  find  him,  after  adverting  to  the  protective  system,  as  *'  that  legisla- 
tion especially  which  confers  favors  upon  particular  classes,"  he  proceeds: 

"  To  perpetuate  a  system  of  encouragement,  growing  out  of  a  different  state 
of  things,  would  be  to  confer  advantages  upon  the  manufacturing,  which  are 
not  enjoyed  by  any  other  branch  of  labor  in  the  United  States,  and  to  convert 
the  favor  and  bounty  of  the  Government  into  permanent  obligations  of  right, 
acquiring  strength  in  proportion  to  their  continuance. 

"  It  will  be  conceded  that,  when  the  fair  rate  of  profit  attendant  upon  the 
sagacious  employment  of  capital  in  the  United  States  is  satisfactorily  ascer- 
tained, it  may  be  wise  so  far  to  protect  any  important  branch  against  the  inju- 
rious effects  of  foreign  rivalry,  as  may  be  necessary  to  preserve  for  it  the 
same  rate  of  profit  as  is  enjoyed  by  others.  If,  however,  by  protective  legis- 
lation, or  otherwise,  the  proprietor  of  an  actual  capital  shall  be  enabled  to  em- 
ploy itin  manufactures  as  advantageously  and  profit  ably  AS  in  any  other  branch 
of  labor,  all  things  considered,  he  could  not  reasonably  demand  more.  The  rate 
of  protection  which  should  enable  manufacturing  labor,  conducted  uponborrow- 
ed  capital  to  indemnify  the  lender,  and,  in  addition,  to  realize  the  regular  rate  of 


16 

profit  for  itself,  would  not  merely  confer  undue  favor  upon  the  manufacturer, 
at  the  expense  of  every  other  employment,  but  bring  the  influence  of  the  capi- 
talist in  direct  conflict  with  the  general  mass  of  the  people.  It  might  even  be 
apprehended  that,  by  such  means,  there  would  be  an  accumulation  of  power  in 
the  hands  of  particular  classes,  strong  enough  to  control  the  Government  itself. 
If  these  observations  are  entitled  to  respect,  little  doubt  is  entertained  that,  in 
a  tariff  framed  on  proper  principles,  the  reduction  of  six  millions,  now  recom- 
mended, may,  for  the  most  part,  be  made  upon  those  commonly  denominated 
protected  articles,  without  prejudice  to  the  reasonable  claims  of  existing  esta- 
blishments." 

These  sentiments  emanate  from  high  public  functionaries,  whom  I  wish  to 
treat  with  all  becoming  respect.  I  am  bound  to  consider  them  as  sincere  opin- 
ions, with  however  little  examination  they  may  have  been  taken  up.  But, 
Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  representative  of  a  great  amount  of  capital,  which  has 
been  induced  to  embark  in  the  business  of  manufactures,  under  the  sanction 
of  your  laws — laws  passed  for  the  express  purpose  of  giving  capital  that  direc- 
tion, it  becomes  my  duty  to  protest,  in  the  strongest  terms  of  which  I  am  ca- 
pable, against  the  theory  and  the  application  of  the  sentiments  contained  in 
these  extracts.  Why  is  the  odious  term  of  monopolists  applied  to  the  manu- 
facturers? A  monopoly  is  an  exclusive  privilege.  What  exclusive  privilege 
attaches  to  a  business  which  is  open  to  every  individual  in  the  United  States? 
How  is  the  manufacturing  of  cotton  more  of  a  monopoly  than  the  planting  of 
cotton  or  rice?  or  the  growing  or  grinding  of  wheat?  They  are  equally  occu- 
pations open  to  every  body.  Similar  productions  are  equally  subject  to  an 
impost  duty,  imported  from  abroad. 

Then,  sir,  we  are  told  of  favored  classes;  of  favors;  of  rich  men  not  being 
content  with  equal  protection,  and  haying  besought  the  Government  to  make 
them  richer  by  acts  of  Congress.  Sir,  I  deny  the  fact.  I  deny  it  in  toto. 
When  did  capital  or  capitalists  ask  you  to  regulate  the  employment  of  their 
capital  ?  Never.  The  mere  possessors  of  capital  are  everywhere  in  favor  of  free 
trade.  Who^  were  in  favor  of  your  tariffs?  and  who  opposed  them?  Sir,  this 
House,  from  motives  of  public  policy,  enacted  the  tariff  laws,  with  a  view  to 
induce  capital  to  go  into  the  business  of  manufacture.  The  capitalists  said, 
No;  let  us  alone.  Well,  sir;  you  pass  your  1'aws,  on  the  strength  of  which 
capital  is  induced  to  take  the  channel  indicated  by  your  legislation.  Millions 
upon  millions  are  invested  in  mills  and  machinery,  which  can  'be  converted 
to  no  other  purpose,  carrying  competition  to  the  very  lowest  point  of  profit  in 
other  occupations.  And  shall  we  now  be  told  that  we  are  grasping  monopo- 
lists, unworthy  the  protection  of  the  laws?  Rich,  forsooth!  Dangerous,  per- 
haps, to  liberty!  Strong  enough,  perhaps,  to  control  the  Government! 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  care  not  how  low  may  be  the  sources  from  which  these 
sentiments  may  have  been  drawn,  nor  from  how  high  places  they  may  have 
been  held  up  to  the  view  of  this  nation— I  pronounce  them  the  genuine  prin- 
ciples of  revolutionary  radicalism;  they  are  the  principles  of  Jack  Cade;  they 
are  the  principles  of  French  Jacobinism,  in  the  worst  periods  of  the  revolu- 
tion, when  the  cry  of  Rich  aristocrat!  met  the  response  of  "«  la  lanterne!" 
and  consigned  the  unhappy  victim  to  the  nearest  lamp  post. 
•  Let  this  war  upon  property  be  carried  out,  and  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves 
about  preserving  the  Union.  It  will  not  be  worth  the  pains.  It  strikes  at 
the  root  of  the  principle  of  accumulation — the  very  foundation  of  all  civiliza- 
tion. On  this  point,  I  may  appeal  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  South,  who  made 
us  such  eloquent  harangues,  during  the  last  session,  on  the  inviolability  of 
property.  Will  it  strengthen'their  confidence  in  the  security  of  their  peculiar 
property  to  see  ours  sacrificed  without  remorse?  Will  the  name  of  rich  slave- 
holder be  a  better  security,  in  this  warfare,  than  that  of  grasping  monopolist? 

Now,  sir,  what  is  the  fact  in  relation  to  capital?  It  is  the  universally  ad- 
mitted theory  in  political  economy,  especially  of  the  free  trade  writers,  from 
Adam  Smith  down  to  Senior  and  McCulloch,  that  the  productions  of  labor  an* 
precisely  in  proportion  to  the  capital  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  that  labor. 
Capital  is  the  fund  for  the  payment  of  wages.  This  theory  lies  also  at  the 


17 

Bottom  of  the  American  System;  and  I  beg  leave  to  quote  the  following  pas- 
sage from  the  Address  of  the  New  York  Convention: 

"All  the  means  of  human  enjoyment,  and  all  the  accumulations  of  wealth, 
are  the  product  of  human  labor.  National  happiness  and  national  wealth  are, 
therefore,  promoted  in  proportion  to  the  active  industry  of  the  community; 
and  that  industry  is  in  proportion  to  the  inducements  to  labor  arising  from  the 
amount  and  certainty  of  its  remuneration.  The  immediate  instrument  for 
•calling  labor  into  action  is  capital.  Capital  is  necessary  to  furnish  the  laborer 
with  the  means  of  applying  his  labor  to  advantage,  whether  in  the  simple  tools 
of  agriculture,  and  some  of  the  mechanic  arts,  or  in  the  complicated  and  ex- 
pensive machinery  applied  to  certain  branches  of  manufacture,  the  modern 
improvements  in  which  have  added  so  much  to  the  productive  power  of  man, 

"It  is  a  settled  axiom,  that  the  industry  of  a  nation  is  in  proportion  to  the 
capital  devoted  to  its  maintenance.  It  is,  therefore,  thought  to  be  a  wise  policy 
to  multiply  the  inducements  to  apply  capital  to  tlie  employment  of  labor  at 
home,  rather  than  to  the  purchase  abroad,  and  traffic  in  commodities  of  foreign 
production,  by  which  the  capital  of  the  country  is  made  to  set  in  motion  for- 
eign labor.  This  is  founded  on  the  principle,  universally  admitted,  that  there 
is,  in  every  nation,  a  power  or  capability  af  labor  beyond  that  actually  put 
forth;  and  that  its  effective  industry  is  proportioned  to  the  stimulus  applied 
in  the  shape  of  capital.  This  constitutes  the  American  System.  It  invites 
the  application  of  American  capital  to  stimulate  American  industry.  It  im- 
poses a  restriction,  in  the  form  of  an  impost  duty,  on  certain  products  of  for - 
tign  labor;  but  so  far  as  relates  to  American  capital,  or  American  labor,  it 
simply  offers  security  and  inducement  to  the  one,  and  gives  energy  and  vigor 
to  the  other." 

I  quote  this  the  more  readily,  because  it  is  an  argument  which  I  have  never 
seen  answered.  Now,  sir,  what  will  be  the  effect  of  annihilating  this  capital 
now  employed  in  paying  the  wages  of  labor?  To  the  capitalist,  it  is  an  abso- 
1  ate  loss;  a  sudden  blow;  and  there's  the  end.  But  the  withdrawal  of  the 
capital  which  paid  the  wages  of  labor,  in  its  different  departments,  will  be  a 
permanent  paralysis,  acting  directly  upon  the  laboring  classes.  Why  is  the 
price  of  labor  5d  a  day  in  Ireland,  but  because  there  is  no  capital  to  give  it 
employment?  The  country  does  not  afford  sufficient  security  to  induce  capi- 
talists to  place  their  property  there.  Here,  sir,  we  are  told  of  the  great  profits 
of  the  manufacturers;  as  if  this,  if  true,  would  furnish  a  good  ground  for  in- 
terference in  reducing  them.  I  deny  that  it  would  do  so;  because,  if  there  is 
any  one  principle  of  universal  operation,  it  is  the  tendency  of  high  prices  and 
high  profits  to  cause  an  immediate  competition,  and  thu*  reduce  prices  and  profits 
as  low  or  lower  than  the  general  level  in  other  branches.  I  recollect,  sir,  that, 
about  the  year  1818,  upland  cotton,  certainly  for  two,  and,  I  believe,  for  three 
years,  sold  for  upwards  of  thirty  cents  a  pound.  What  was  the  consequence? 
So  rapid  an  extension  of  the  cultivation  as  to  have  reduced  the  price  one-half 
in  1820.  Take  a  more  familiar  instance:  The  price  of  coal,  during  the  last 
winter,  in  consequence  of  a  short  supply,  rose  to  double  the  usual  prices;  the 
effect  of  which  has  been  that,  at  the  present  moment,  the  price  of  coal  is  lower 
in  the  large  cities  than  it  has  been  for  twenty  years.  The  manufactures  of  both 
wool  and  cotton  have  felt  the  full  effect  of  this  spirit  of  competition.  Taken 
together,  I  do  not  believe  that  either  branch  has  given  a  return  of  the  capital 
invested  and  interest  At  all  events,  I  boldly  aver,  that,  for  the  last  nine 
months,  no  branch  of  trade  or  commerce  has  been  so  much  depressed  as  the 
business  of  manufacturing.  I  mean  to  say,  that  a  given  amount  of  capital,  in- 
vested in  ships,  or  in  commerce,  whether  in  the  China  trade,  the  coffee  trade, 
the  whale  fishery,  or  in  general  trade,  or  in  bank  or  insurance  stocks,  would 
command,  and  will  now  command,  more  money  than  a  like  amount  invested 
in  the  best  manufacturing  stocks  whatever.  On  this  point,  I  challenge  exami- 
nation, and  defy  contradiction. 

Sir,  we  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  rich  manufacturing  corporations;  of  over- 
grown corporations,  as  odious,  dangerous  monsters.  On  this  point,  I  have  a 
word  to  say,  as  on  no  subject,  perhaps,  is  t!v_-  ?  more  general  misapprehension. 


IS 

What  is  the  fact?  The  wonderful  results  in  the  modern  system  of  manufac- 
ture are  produced  by  the  combined  action  of  great  masses  of  capital.  This  is 
more  especially  the  case  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton.  What,  then,  is  the 
effect  of  those  corporations,  or  joint  stock  companies?  Simply,  to  enable  peo- 
ple of  small,  or  moderate  capital ,  to  come  into  the  business  on  equal  terms  with  the 
rich.  For  myself,  I  know  of  no  more  ingenious  mode  of  paralysing  the  direct  and 
immediate  influence  of  wealth,  than  those  very  corporations.  The  property  of  the 
rich  capitalist,  if  he  be  rich,  is  taken  from  his  control,  and  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  more  active  managers  of  the  concern.  The  mere  capitalist  has  no  more 
command  of  it  than  if  it  were  sunk  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  It  may  be  worth 
while  to  inquire  how  these  corporations  are  made  up.  I  have  before  me  the 
component  parts  of  probably  the  largest  manufacturing  corporation  in  the 
United  States — the  Merrimack  Manufacturing  Company — with  a  capital  of 
$1,500,000.  divided  into  shares  of  $1 ,000  each.  The  whole  number  of  proprie- 
tors is  160;  of  which  15  are  single  women,  holding  55  shares;  1 1  widows,  hold- 
ing 66  shares;  20  trustees,  holding  108  shares:  15  executors  and  guardiansy 
23  professional  men;  10  mechanics,  workmen,  and  agents;  35  merchants,  hold- 
ing 560  shares;  and  19  capitalists,  or  men  retired  from  business,  holding  240 
shares.  As  proof  that  the  rich  are  not  the  only  proprietors,  there  are  twenty 
persons  owning  one  share  each,  and  thirty-eight  owning  but  two  shares  each, 
bir,  I  hope  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  these  aristocratic  corporations. 

There  is  one  effect  growing  out  of  them,  however,  in  the  city  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  represent,  which  I  think  too  honorable  to  be  passed  over  in  silence. 
It  is  this:  the  sons  of  our  richest  men  covet  the  agencies  of  these  companies, 
not  as  sinecures,  but  as  affording  an  active  and  honorable  employment^  ana 
because,  with  us,  a  useful  occupation  is  essential  to  respectability. 

I  now  come,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  an  examination  of  the  bill  before  us.  In 
looking  over  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  I  am  exceed- 
ingly at  a  loss,  altogether  puzzled,  to  determine  on  what  principle  it  has  been 
framed.  The  first  intimation  is  that  of  producing  equality,  quoting  the  invita- 
tion of  the  President  for  "  the  removal  of  those  financial  burthens  which  may 
be  found  to  fall  unequally  upon  any."  As  we  proceed,  one  cannot  but  be 
struck  with  the  marks  of  haste  with  which  the  whole  affair  has  been  concocted. 
After  stating  that  the  revenue  must  be  reduced  to  fifteen  mil  lions,  they  proceed : 
"  The  act  of  1832  has  made  a  partial  reduction  towards  this  point.  But,  under 
this  act,  the  revenue  from  the  customs,  for  the  next  year,  is  calculated,  in  the 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  at  about  eighteen  millions;"  and,  with 
the  income  from  the  public  lands,  "  exhibiting  an  annual  excess  of  from  Jive 
to  nine  millions  over  the  just  uses  of  the  Government,  and  taxing  every  family 
in  the  United  States  to  its  share,  or  more  than  its  share,  of  that  uncalled-for 
excess."  An  uncertainty  of  four  millions  is  pretty  vague  ground  for  perma- 
nent legislation.  But  when  a  gentleman  of  the  literary  accuracy  which  dis- 
tinguishes the  Chairman  of  this  Committee,  talks  of  taxing  every  family  in 
the  United  States  to  its  full  share,  with  the  chance  that  some,  or  all,  would 
be  taxed  more  than  their  share,  it  is  pretty  good  evidence,  if  not  of  panic,  of 
a  good  share  of  that  moral  fear  whicn  the  gentleman  avows — a  fear  that  the 
Union  might  be  dissolved  before  this  bill  could  be  reported. 

We  next  find  the  following:  "The  extinguishment  of  the  debt,  and  the 
commencement  of  the  new  Presidential  term,  makes  this  a  fit  season  for  per- 
manent fiscal  regulations.  It  is  vitally  important,  too,  to  all  engaged  in  any 
of  those  numerous  commercial,  manufacturing,  or  agricultural  enterprises 
which  are  affected  by  changes  in  the  rates  of  impost,  and  are  more  exposed  to 
suffer  from  uncertainty  than  even  error  in  legislation,  now  to  know  the  inten- 
tion and  policy  of  this  Government  in  regard  to  their  several  interests." 

Most  extraordinary  reasons,  truly!  A  "  new  Presidential  term!"  So  we 
are  every  four  years  to  have  new  "  permanent  fiscal  regulations."  But,  sir, 
the  law  of  last  July  goes  into  operation  precisely  at  the  commencement  of  the 
new  Presidential  term:  and  the  policy  of  the  Government  was  supposed  to  be 
understood.  And  the  whole  effect  of  this  bill  is  now  to  imsettle  erery  thing. 


19 

to  disturb  all  the  calculations  and  arrangements  of  the  commercial  and  manu- 
facturing community. 

The  following  paragraph  is  entitled  to  a  passing  remark: 

"  Throwing  out  of  view,  for  the  present,  the  progressive  reduction  that  ex- 
pediency and  even  justice  require,  they  have  fixed  the  revenue  to  be  ultimately 
received  at  a  sum  not  exceeding  15,000,000." 

It  shows  that  the  idea  of  justice  to  existing  establishments,  did  once  flit 
across  the  mind  of  the  committee,  which  they  put  out  of  view  for  the  present, 
and  it  will  be  found  it  never  returned.  I  Irave  already  anticipated  any  de- 
tailed remarks  on  the  fiscal  calculations  of  the  committee:  they  assume  65  to 
70,000,000  as  the  amount  of  dutiable  commodities  imported;  whilst  the  actual 
quantity,  on  the  average  of  six  years,  is  less  than  60,000,000.  The  committee 
proceed: 

*'  The  committee,  in  the  bill  herewith  reported  by  them,  have  endeavored  to 
arrange  the  duties  with  reference  to  this  principle,  at  rates  of  from  ten  to 
twenty  per  cent.,  varying  from  them  chiefly  in  those  instances  where  nation- 
al independence,  in  time  of  war,  seemed  to  demand  some  sacrifice  in  peace, 
(as  in  the  case  of  iron)  or,  when  it  was  thought  that  a  higher  or  lower  rate  of 
duty,  would  be  of  advantage  to  the  revenue,  without  any  individual  injury 
(as  in  regard  to  distilled  spirits,)  or,  when  some  branch  of  industry  might  be 
materially  benefited  by  low  imposts  on  some  of  its  raw  materials.  On  many 
articles,  such  as  wines,  spirits,  iron,  &c.  experience  has  shown,  that  fraud  can 
only  be  prevented  by  specific  duties  on  weight  or  measure;  and,  as  these  rates 
must  be  graduated  on  the  mean  value  of  commodities  of  the  same  class  or 
name,  this  may  sometimes  fall  heavily  on  particular  kinds  and  qualities  of 
them." 

We  have  here,  a  distinct  avowal  of  the  only  principle,  on  which  the  com- 
mittee depart  from  their  original  basis  of  equality.  I  must  also  ask  the  indul- 
gence of  the  committee,  to  quote  the  following  further  extract  from  the  report: 

"  In  adjusting  the  several  duties,  they  have  generally  conformed,  unless  some 
strong  reason  for  a  different  rule  was  perceived,  to  those  of  the  tariff  act 
of  1816,  with  its  short  supplementary  act  of  1818.  The  act  of  1816  was  framed 
•with  great  care  and  deliberation,  by  some  of  our  ablest  Statesmen,  looking,  at 
.the  same  time,  to  the  revenue,  then  so  peculiarly  necessary  for  the  discharge 
of  our  large  war  debt,  and  to  the  preservation,  during  a  violent  transition  from 
war  to  peace,  of  the  numerous  manufactures  that  had  grown  up  under  the 
double  duties,  and  the  practical  prohibition  of  the  embargo,  the  non-inter- 
course, and  the  war  with  great  Britain.  The  vast  increase  of  manufactures, 
of  all  sorts,  in  the  United  States,  during  the  eight  years  between  1816  and 
1824,  proves,  that  the  framers  of  that  tariff,  in  providing  revenue,  had  not  only 
given  ample  incidental  security  to  existing  manufactures,  but  even  induced 
new  investments  of  capital.  So  well  does  it  appear  to  have  been  adjusted  in 
regard  to  woollens,  that  the  manufacturers  of  these  goods,  examined  by  the 
Committee  of  Manufactures  of  this  House,  in  1828,  generally  agreed  that 
their  business  was  in  a  more  flourishing  state,  under  the  tariff  of  1816,  than 
under  the  higher  protection  of  1824. 

**  It  has,  however,  been  the  wish  of  the  committee  to  guard  against  a  sudden 
Jiuctuation  of  the  price  of  goods,  whether  in  the  hands  of  the  merchant,  retail- 
er or  manufacturer,  arid  with  that  view  they  have  made  the  reduction  upon  the 
more  important  protected  articles,  gradual  and  progressive." 

Now,  sir,  I  deny  altogether  that  the  sole  object  of  the  tariff  of  1816  was  the 
preservation  of  existing  establishments.  In  the  cotton  manufacture,  as  then  car- 
ried on,  the  provisions  of  that  act  were  generally  thought  altogether  inade- 
quate. I  have  formerly  stated,  and  I  now  repeat,  that  it  was  under  the  repre- 
sentations and  influence  of  the  late  Mr.  Francis  C.  Lowell,  that  Mr.  Lowndes, 
and  others  of  the  South  Carolina  delegation,  were  brought  to  support  the  cet- 
ton  minimum  of  that  bill;  Mr.  Lowell  was  able  to  convince  those  gentlemen, 
and  experience  has  proved  his  correctness,  that,  under  the  influence  of  the 
power  loom,  then  just  brought  into  perfect  use,  but  actually  in  operation  in 
one  single  spot,  (Waltham,)  the  protection  of  six  and  a  fourth  cents  would  be 


26 

sufficient  to  establish  the  manufacture  so  far  as  to  supersede  and  drive  out  of 
the  market  the  coarse  India  cottons,  then  in  general  use.  The  fa«t  1  have  re- 
peatedly had  from  Mr.  Lowell  himself.  The  arrangement  then  appeared  as 
desirable  to  South  Carolina  as  to  the  North — the  substitution  of  an  American 
material  and  an  American  manufacture,  for  the  miserable  trash  of  India.  To 
effect  this  object,  it  was  then  thought  no  objection,  that  it  imposed  a  prohibi- 
tory duty  of  from  80  to  90  per  cent.,  as  it  was  proclaimed  and  well  understood 
that  it  would  do. 

For  the  latter  clause -of  the  forgoing  extract,  I  give  the  committee  credit. 
They  do  not  put  the  extension  ot  time  for  the  reduction  of  duties,  in  certain 
cases  for  one  or  two  years,  on  the  footing  of  its  being  intended  as  any  redemp- 
tion of  the  public  faith:  it  would  be  too  miserable  a  mockery  to  do  so.  It  is 
merely  to  prevent  the  shock  of  too  great  fluctuation  to  the  trading  community. 
But,  sir,  on  this  point  ot  the  pledge  of  the  public  faith,  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
to  the  following  extract,  from  the  last  message  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States: 

"  What  then  shall  be  done?  Large  interests  have  grown  up  under  the  implied 
pledge  of  our  national  legislation,  which  it  would  seem  a  violation  of  public 
faith  suddenly  to  abandon.  Nothing  could  justify  it  but  the  public  safety, 
which  is  the  supreme  law.  But  those  who  have  vested  their  capital  in  manu- 
facturing establishments,  cannot  expect  that  the  people  will  continue,  perma- 
nently, to  pay  high  taxes./br  their  benefit,  when  the  money  is  not  required  for 
any  legitimate  purpose  in  the  administration  of  the  Government.  Is  it  not 
enough  that  the  high  duties  have  been  paid  as  long  as  the  money  arising  from 
them  could  be  applied  to  the  common  benefit  in  the  extinguishment  of  the  pub- 
lic debt?  " 

Mr  Chairman,  I  think  it  would  seem  to  be  a  violation  of  the  public  faith;  and 
is  it  mere  seeming?  If  the  public  safety  require  a  sacrifice  of  private  property, 
let  the  public  treasury  provide  an  indemnity.  The'laws  under  which  this  pro- 
perty has  been  invested,  are  declared  by  the  constitution  equally  supreme 
with  the  constitution  itself.  Submit  to  this  violation,  and  yourconstitution,  your 
Union,  is  not  worth  a  rush.  What  a  question  is  the  last!  Because  a  State  of 
unparalleled  prosperity,  under  the  operation  of  the  protective  system,  has 
enabled  the  Government  so  soon  to  pay  offthe  public  debt;  therefore  the  system 
must  be  abandoned.  Who  has  not  sympathized  with  the  unhappy  bird,  the 
agonies  of  whose  death  were  rendered  more  acute  by  perceiving,  that  a  feather 
from  its  own  body  had  winged  the  fatal  shaft.  Is  it  not  too  much  to  be  told, 
that  the  success  of  this  system  has  forged  the  weapon  which  is  to  prostrate  it 
in  the  dust?  The  last  article  of  the  report  which  I  shall  notice,  is  the  follow- 
ing: 

The  committee,  perceiving  no  suffieient'reason  why  the  consumers  of 'foreign 
luxuries  should  not  pay  their  share  of  the  public  burthens,  propose  to  raise  the 
rates  of  duties  upon  silks  nearer  to  the  average  rate  of  duties  imposed  by  the 
bill,  than  they  now  are  under  the  act  of  1832.  They  also  propose  to  fix  a 
moderate  specific  duty,  equal  to  about  20  per  cent,  on  the  value  upon  teas,  and 
also  upon  coffee,  which  were  made  wholly  free  of  duty  by  the  act  of  the  last 
summer.  This  has  been  added  from  a  motive  of  financial  prudence,  lest  the 
revenue  from  the  customs  should,  from  any  modification  of  the  bill,  or  other 
cause,  fall  short  of  the  estimate,  or  lest  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  should 
be  in  part  diverted  to  some  other  channel." 

Well,  sir,  we  have  got  through  the  pretence  of  reducing  the  revenue;  the 
committee  are  now  for  increasing  duties:  and  first,  on  silks,  as  luxuries. 

Now,  sir,  I  confess,  if  there  is  any  one  species  of  cant  and  humbug  ad 
vulgus  captandum,  which  I  despise  more  than  any  other,  it  is  that  which 
we  often  hear,  of  great  consideration  for  the  poor,  in  the  levying  of  import 
duties.  I  should  like  to  know  what  is  meant  by  the  poor,  in  reference  to  this 
subject? — Is  it  paupers?  If  so,  they  are  supported  by  the  community.  If  it  is 
intended  to  apply  the  term  to  the  industrious  part  of  the  community,  to  the 
working  men  and  working  women,  I  deny  its  application.  Whoever  has  the 
use  of  his  limbs  in  this  happy  country  is  rich,  and  has  his  full  share  of  what 


21 

may  properly  be  denominated  luxuries  in  some  countries.  Now  in  reference  to 
the  article  of  silks,  I  ask  what  farmer,  what  mechanic,  what  working  man  is 
there,  whose  family  does  not  wear  silks,  more  in  proportion  to  their  property, 
than  those  of  the  rich?  If  there  are  any  class  of  human  beings  who  do  not 
wear  silks  in  this  country  ,|it  is  only  the  slaves.  Then,  Sir,  a  duty  is  added  on 
tea  and  coffee,  not,  I  believe,  as  luxuries,  although  I  have  sometimes  heard 
them  called  so,  but  as  a  measure  of"  financial  prudence."  Sir,  I  commend 
their  prudence;  they  undertook  a  work  of  reduction,  and,  as  proof,  they  went 
manfully  to  work — they  propose  to  restore  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee.  Com- 
ment is  superfluous. 

I  will  detain  the  committee  but  a  moment,  in  comparing  the  details  of  the 
bill  with  the  principles  put  forth  in  the  report.  The  leading  exception  to 
equal  duties,  is  in  favor  of  articles  necessary  to  our  independence  in  war.  As  1 
proceed  in  their  table,  I  find  side  and  fire  arms,  rifles,  muskets,  reduced  from 
the  protecting  duty,  equal  to  53  per  cent,  to  an  ad  valorem  one  of  20  per  cent. ; 
then  "iron "wire,  tacks,  brads,  sprigs,  nails  and  spikes,"  retain  their  protective 
duty  from  35  to  96  per  cent.  Is  this  a  mistake  of  the  printer,  or  are  the  latter 
implements  of  war  and  the  former  the  insignia  of  peace.  Then,  Sir,  we  come 
to  hemp,  an  article  essential  to  naval  warfare,  and  which  is  apparently  pro- 
tected, but  the  duty  on  cordage  is  so  graduated,  that  I  have  several  letters 
from  manufacturers  of  cordage,  informing  me  that  should  this  bill  pass,  not  a 
ton  of  hemp  will  be  imported,  nor  a  ton  of  cordage  manufactured  in  the  coun- 
try. The  effect  will  be,  that  our  ships  will  be  wholly  supplied  with  cordage  of 
foreign  manufacture.  Then  there  is  coal  put  at  five  cents  a  bushel,  equal  to 
forty-seven  percent.  Is  this  protected  as  a  munition  of  war,  or  is  it  a  luxury? 
No,  says  the  gentleman  near  me,  it  isa  product  of  Virginia.  Then,  Sir,  we  come 
to  sugar,  the  protection  on  which  I  would  be  the  last  to  abandon,  especially 
after  the  classical  and  eloquent  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Louisiana,  [Mr. 
WHITE.]  Sugar  pays  a  specific  duty,  under  the  bill,  of  46  per  cent.  I  should 
like  to  know  on  which  of  the  principles  avowed  in  the  bill,  this  duty  is  main- 
tained, independence  in  war,  equality  or  luxury?  Perhaps,  sir,  there  are 
some  protective  reminiscences  connected  with  sugar,  which  entitle  it  to  spe- 
cial favor;  sugar  was  the  subject  of  a  protective  duty  in  1816.  By  the  act  of 
that  year,  it  was  subject  to  a  duty  of  three  cents  a  pound;  the  committee 
reported  four  cents,  but  it  was  reduced  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to  3£;  a 
motion  was  then  made  to  reduce  it  to  2|:  this  was  opposed  by  the  entire 
Georgia  delegation  and  nearly  all  that  of  South  Carolina.  The  name  of  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia,  on  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  [Mr. 
WILD^,]  will  be  found  on  that  occasion  voting  against  the  reduction.  So  that, 
\yith  all  that  gentleman's  zeal  in  favor  of  free  trade,  I  apprehend  he  must  con- 
fess to  a  little  peccadillo  on  that  occasion.  I  recollect  perfectly  well,  as  a  com- 
mercial man,  that  about  that  period  the  idea  was  current,  that  Georgia  was 
going  to  abandon  the  cultivation  of  cotton  and  take  up  that  of  sugar. 

I  proceed  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill  in  the  two  great  articles  of  woollens 
and  cottons.  Woollens  are  reduced  in  this  bill  from  fifty  to  twenty  per  cent, 
besides  doing  away  the  specific  duty  on  flannels  and  carpetings. 

I  shall  not  go  into  any  details  on  this  branch  of  business.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that  it  must,  of  necessity,  prostrate  the  whole  manufacture — it  must  level  it 
with  the  dust.  If  it  arise  partially,  it  can  only  be  when  the  price  of  wool  shall 
fall,  not  only  to  the  price  in  Europe,  but  below  it,  and,  by  depressing  the 
price  of  labor  in  like  proportion,  a  great  part  of  the  capital  must  be  annihil- 
ated. 

I  proceed  to  consider  the  operation  of  the  bill  on  the  manufacture  of  cot- 
tons— a  manufacture  which  has  been  the  subject  of  an  accurate  report  by  a 
cpmmittee  of  the  New  York  Convention,  founded  on  actual  returns.  The  ca- 
pital employed  in  that  manufacture  in  the  autumn  of  1831,  and  in  making  ad- 
ditional machinery,  was  forty-five  millions;  it  cannot  be  estimated,  at  present, 
at  less  than  fifty  millions.  Now,  what  is  the  manner  in  which  this  great,  this 
successful  interest  is  treated  by  the  Committee?  Why,  sir,  the  minimum,  or 
specific  duties  of  seven  and  a  half  cents  a  square  yard,  on  white  goods,  and 


eight  and  three  quarter  cents  on  printed  or  colored,  are  done  away,  and  an  ad 
valorem  duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  put  in  their  place;  that  is  to  say,  seven  and 
a  half  cents  is  reduced  on  the  average  to  one  or  two  cents,  and  eight  and  three 
quarters  cents  is  reduced  to  from  one  and  a  half  to  three  cents.  And,  sir, 
what  is  the  ground  for  this  radical,  this  enormous  change,  to  one-fourth  that 
imposed  by  the  favorite  act  of  1816?  I  listened,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  great 
attention  to  the  explanation  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  [Mr.  VER- 
PLANCK,  ]  and,  also,  to  another  member  of  the  Committee,  [Mr.  GILMOREJ] 
the  reason  given  by  both  was  the  same,  that,  as  we  were  able  to  export  coarse 
cottons  to  foreign  countries,  little  or  no  protection  could  be  necessary  for  any 
part  of  this  manufacture.  Why,  sir,  to  judge  from  the  explanations  of  the 
committee,  I  must  presume  that  they  are  wholly  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the 
business  of  printing  calicoes  is  carried  on  in  this  country,  and  yet,  at  least 
ten  millions  of  dollars  must  be  invested  in  this  branch  of  business,  making 
thirty-five  to  forty  millions  of  yards  per  annum.  Have  the  Committee  made 
any  inquiry  into  the  eftect  of  this  change  on  this  great  interest?  They  do  not 
pretend  that  they  have.  Is  it  not  lamentable  to  see  how  great  interests  are 
sported  with  in  this  enlightened  Government?  We  had  last  year  a  Commit- 
tee of  Manufactures,  to  whom  was  committed'the  protection  of  the  manufac- 
turing interest;  through  them,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  directed  to 
collect  information  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States.  That  information  is 
not  yet  before  us.  But,  on  the  strength  of  such  information  as  he  did  obtain, 
and  I  know  he  took  very  considerable  pains  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  cot- 
ton manufacture,  he  decided  on  the  present  rates  of  specific  duties.  And,  yet, 
here  is  a  Committee,  knowing  nothing  of  manufactures,  who  lop  off  three- 
fourths  of  the  duty  at  a  blow,  because  we  export  coarse  cottons.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  becomes  necessary  to  enter  into  some  details  in  reference  to 
this  whole  manufacture.  The  cotton  manufacture  may  properly  enough  be 
divided  into  three  branches:  first,  the  coarser  description  of  cottons,  of  which 
a  considerable  part  are  exported;  secondly,  of  the  finer  goods,  as  shirtings, 
sheetings,  &c.;  and  thirdly,  printed  calicoes,  various  colored  goods  for  summer 
wear,  vestings.  &c.  In  all  these  branches,  competition  has  been  carried  so 
far,  as  to  produce  an  abundant  supply  for  the  entire  consumplion  of  the  coun- 
try, with  the  exception  of  the  finer  descriptions  of  prints,  and  to  have  brought 
down  the  profits  of  the  business,  at  the  present  time,  below  the  average  of 
other  employments.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  that,  at  the  present  moment,  the 
manufacture  of  the  coarse  cottons  for  exportation  is  the  most  profitable  branch 
of  the  business.  These  coarse  cottons,  of  which  I  am  furnished  with  a  de- 
scription, contain  the  value,  as  near  as  may  be,  of  four  and  a  half  cents  of  the 
raw  material  to  the  square  yard;  the  cost  of  manufacture,  is  three  cents,  and, 
at  the  present  price,  produces  in  cash  to  the  manufacturer,  about,  but  hardly, 
nine  cents,  and  giving  a  profit  of  about  ten  per  cent,  on  the  capital  employed. 
It  may  be  proper,  however,  to  state  that  this  result  can  only  be  produced  by 
the  employment  of  the  very  best  machinery.  Now,  sir,  it  is  evident  that  this 
identical  description  of  goods  could  not  be  imported  from  England,  even  with- 
out any  protecting  duty  at  all.  But  the  English  manufacture  great  quantities 
of  imitations  of  the?e  goods  out  of  the  cheaper  Bengal  cotton,  which  they  sell 
at  a  lower  price,  and  it  is  only  after  ascertaining  by  experience  the  superior 
durability  of  our  good?  that  they  maintain  themsejves  in  those  markets,  where, 
it  is  probable,  much  greater  quantities  of  the  inferior  British  goods  continue 
to  be  sold  than  of  the  superior  American  manufacture.  Now,  sir,  can  it  be 
for  the  interest  of  any  body  to  introduce  these  inferior  goods  made  from  Ben- 
gal cotton?  Can  there  be  greater  madness  than  that  the  cotton  planters  should 
be  desirous  to  try  this  experiment?  I  have  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  manu- 
facture of  our  coarse  cottons  will  sustain  itself  eventually;  but,  if  the  other 
branches  are  prostrated,  all  the  machinery  will  be  turned  upon  this  descrip- 
tion of  good?,  and  our  own  and  foreign  markets  overstocked.  So  that,  for  a 
time,  this  branch  will  be  paralyzed  with  the  rest. 

That,  under  a .duty  of  twenty  per  cent.,  vast  quantities  of  the  finer  de- 
scriptions of  plain  goods  and  printed  cloths  will  be  imported,  there  can  be  no 


doubt;  but  it  is  upon  the  branch  of  calico  printing  that  it  will  fall  with  peculiar 
severity.  So  far  as  I  am  informed  there  is  but  one  opinion  amongst  those 
best  acquainted  with  the  subject,  as  to  the  effect  of  this  bill— that  it  will  cause 
an  abandonment  of  the  business.  I  believe  it  myself,  and  yet  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  saying  that,  in  all  the  branches  of  the  cotton  manufacture,  wanted 
for  the  common  purposes  of  life,  including  printed  calicoes,  the  United  States 
are  supplied  by  their  own  manufacture,  intrinsically  cheaper  than  any  nation 
on  the  face  of  the  globe.  It  is  very  difficult  to  make  a  body,  so  much  governed 
by  theories  as  this  House,  understand  how  this  can  be  true,  and  yet  the  ma- 
nufacture be  abandoned,  in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  goods  which 
are  actually  dearer;  but  I  appeal  to  practical  men  for  the  truth  ot  it. 

The  fact  is,  the  effect  of  the  specific  duty  has  been  to  establish  the  manu- 
facture of  goods  of  superior  quality  to  most  ot  the  English,  both  as  to  sub- 
stance, as  to  width,  and  as  to  permanency  of  colors.  One-half,  at  least,  of  the 
British  prints  imported  are  fugitive  colors,  of  no  value,  but  which  cannot  be 
detected  by  the  unskilful;  while  it  is  the  custom  of  nearly  or  ail  the  Ameri- 
can'printers  to  print  nothing  but  in  fast  colors;  at  all  events,  the  stamp  of  the 
manufacturer  is  a  sufficient  guarantee.  Under  the  present  duties,  none  but 
goods,  comparatively  high  priced,  are  imported;  but  substitute  an  ad  valorem 
duty  of  twenty  or  thirty  per  cent.,  and  whole  ship  loads  of  miserable  trash 
will  inundate  our  markets.  I  have  been  furnished,  and  have  before  me,  a  sam- 
ple which  I  believe  to  be  the  nt  plus  ultra  of  inanity;  it  is  eighteen  inches 
wide,  and,  I  think,  thirty  yards  would  hardly  weigh  a  pound.  It  is  said  to 
have  been  sold  at  six  cents,  subject  to  a  drawback  of  four  and  three-eighths 
cents;  and  yet  I  believe  the  one  and  five-eighth  cents  which  it  cost  the  expor- 
ter is  double  its  actual  value- 

The  printing  of  cottons,  in  its  present  state,  is  one  of  the  highest  triumphs 
of  human  art;  the  engraving  the  cylinders  is,  perhaps,  the  most  delicate  and 
curious  operation  in  mechanics;  and  the  fixing  the  various  colors  is  the  appli- 
cation of  the  highest  discoveries  in  chemical  science.  The  transfer  of  such  a 
busiaess  from  one  country  to  another  is  a  work  of  extreme  difficulty,  and  of 
great  expense — it  has  been  completed. 

I  boldly  assert  that  there  is  no  branch  of  the  business,  the  designing,  the 
engraving,  the  printing,  or  the  raising  the  colors,  which  will  not  compare,  in 
beauty  and  perfection,  with  the  best  work  in  Manchester.  My  constituents 
have  invested  several  millions  of  dollars  in  this  branch  of  business;  they  have 
done  it  under  the  sanction  and  faith  of  your  laws,  and  you  have  no  right  to 
repeal  those  laws,  and  abandon  that  property  to  destruction. 

Every  dollar  ot"  capital  belonging  to  my  constituents,  invested  in  the  cotton 
manufacture,  has  been  invested  since  1816.  They  have  never  asked  you  for 
additional  protection;  on  the  contrary,  in  1824,  so  far  as  individual  opinion 
went,  they  doubted  the  expediency  of  the  addition  then  made.  The  great  fall 
of  prices  in  1826,  however,  materially  altered  the  state  of  the  case;  and  the 
introduction  of  printing  carried  the  business  up  into  branches  not  originally 
contemplated.  And  yet,  sir,  we  took  no  part  in  the  additional  duty  of  1828. 
I  was  myself  applied  to,  and  asked  if  it  was  not  expedient  to  petition  Congress 
for  further  protection;  I  replied,  that,  as  ta  question  of  policy,  I  might,  per- 
haps, think  further  protection  expedient,  as  extending  the  manufacture  into 
higher  branches,  but  being:myself  interested  in  the  manufacture,  I  would  not 
ask  for  it.  It  was  not  asked  for  by  my  constituents;  they  followed  your  le- 
gislation, and  they  claim  the  protection  of  those  taws,  under  which  they  have 
acted,  as  a  matter  of  right.  The  only  testimony  taken,  in  relation  to  the  bu- 
siness of  printing,  before  the  Committee  of  Congress  in  1828,  was  that  of  Mr. 
Marshall,  formerly  of  Manchester,  then  a  printer  of  New  York.  He  was 


asked  the  following  question:  "  What  is  the  difference  in  expense  of  printing 
the  same  patterns  and  qualities  in  this  country  or  in  England?"  His  answer 
was:  "  The  expense^pf  printing  is  one  third  higher  here  than  in  England;  this 
arises  from  the  difference  of  expense  in  fuel,  drugs,  and  wages — the  fuel  which 
costs  twenty-seven  dollars  in  Manchester,  costs  one  hundred  and  twenty 
dollars  in  Hudson  to  do  the  same  business."  And  yet,  sir,  two  gentlemen  of 


24 

mittee  [Mr.  GILMORE  and  Mr.  POLK]  have  quoted  evidence  from  that  book, 
in  reference  to  coarse  cottons,  as  justifying  their  report,  and  forgotten  to  refer 
to  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Marshall,  which  is  directly  to  the  point. 

Now,  sir,  in  the  lower  priced  prints,  where  the  foreign  article  is  excluded, 
competition  has  brought  down  the  prices  to  the  lowest  point  of  Jiving  profit, 
and,  in  the  higher  branches,  where  they  meet  the  English,  there  is  much  un- 
certainty, arising  from  the  nature  of  the  business,  where  so  much  depends  on 
fancy,  and  the  relative  supply.  This  description  of  goods  have  to  be  sold,  what- 
ever may.be  the  price — the  manufacturers  never  think  of  keeping  them  over. 

In  consequence  of  the  large  importation  in  1831,  and  the  increasing  compe- 
tition, a  great  many  printing  establishments  have  lost  money  during  the  last 
year.  I  have  the  accounts  of  the  Merrimack  Company,  made  up  for  six 
months  last  November,  showing  a  balance  of  profit  of  fifty-seven  thousand 
dollars  on  the  manufacture  of  three  millions  of  yards,  something  less  than 
four  per  cent,  on  the  capital j  but,  in  this  account,  no  allowance  is  made  for 
wear  and  tear  of  machinery,  nor  for  insurance  against  fire.  Now,  sir.  if  such 
is  the  state  of  the  business,  under  the  present  duty,  can  any  thing  but  ruin 
follow  under  the  present  bill,  which  removes  full  three-fourths  of  that  duty. 
There  is  one  consideration  of  which  I  dare  say  this  committee  are  not  aware, 
and  which  has  an  important  bearing  on  this  question — the  great  outlay  of 
capital,  compared  with  the  annual  product.  The  great  results  in  the  cotton 
manufacture  are  produced  by  a  great  outlay  of  capital,  which  will  only  return 
in  the  finer  branches  an  annual  product  of  fifty  to  sixty  cents  for  every  dol- 
lar of  capital.  In  other  words,  a  capital  of  a  million  of  dollars  will  only  fur- 
nish an  annual  supply  of  five  or  six  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  manufac- 
tures. So  that  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  products  is  only  about  ten 
per  cent,  on  the  capital. 

In  this  respect,  it  differs  materially  from  the  woollen  manufacture)  where  a 
given  amount  of  capital  will  produce  more  than  dollar  for  dollar  in  products. 
The  effect  is,  that  a  duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  on  cottons  is  no  more  protection 
on  the  capital  employed,  than  ten  per  cent,  is  on  woollens.  Why,  sir,  even 
England,  with  all  her  superiority,  imposes  as  great  a  duty  on  printed  cottons 
as  that  imposed  by  our  present  law.  She  imposes  a  duty  of  three  and  a  half 
pence,  or  seven  cents  the  square  yard,  in  addition  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  ten 
per  cent. 

Mr.  Chairman,  aware  how  little  this  committee  know  of  the  state  of  this 
manufacture,  I  am  going  to  furnish  them  the  best  possible  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  my  statements — the  manufactures  themselves.  I  have  been  furnished 
from  a  few  different  establishments  with  these  samples,  to  which  I  invite  the 
attention  of  the  committee.  It  is,  I  dare  say,  such  an  exhibition  as  was  never 
before  made  in  this  Hall;  it  is,  in  my  apprehension,  an  exhibition  of  which  the 
country  may  well  be  proud.  I  take  pride  in  being  the  organ  of  making  it 

The  distinguished  son  of  South  Carolina,  who  has  lately  taken  a  seat  in  the 
other  branch  of  this  Government,  and  who,  with  his  friend  Mr.Lowndes,  es- 
tablished the  cotton  minimum  in  1816,  was  in  Boston  about  the  year  1818,  at 
which  time  the  Waltham  factory  was  in  full  and  successful  operation.  He 
visited  that  establishment,  and  was  received  with  that  sort  of  gratulation  and 
triumph,  which  seemed  to  say,  and  which  in  fact  did  say — Behold  here  your 
work! 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe,  in  the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment,  could  it  have 
been  revealed  to  him,  that,  in  the  short  space  of  fifteen  years,  such  an  exhibition 
as  this  could  have  here  been  made,  ana  of  which  it  might  also  be  said,  This, 
also,  is  your  work!  it  would  have  given  him  a  prouder,  a  nobler  satisfaction, 
than  a  true  revelation  that  it  was  his  destiny  one  day  to  be  President  of  the 
United  States.  But,  alas  !  what  a  change  !  Alas  !  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
in  that  band,  who  have  conspired, and  stand  eager  and  impatient  to  strike  the 
blow  which  is  to  lay  this  great  interest  prostrate  at  y0ur  feet,  I  should  be 
obliged  to  say  of  that  gentleman,  Et  tu  Brute? 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  cannot  leave  this  subject  without  adverting  to  one  other 
circumstance,  which  has  an  important  bearing  upon  this  whole  matter.  I 


25 

stated,  on  a  former  occasion,  that  the  depressed  condition  of  the  business  of 
manufacture  in  England  afforded  an  additional  reason  against  withdrawing 
protection  at  the  present  time;  that  after  a  period  of  upwards  of  twenty  years 
of  unexampled  prosperity,  and  of  extraordinary  profits  and  high  labor,  a 
crisis  had  arrived  when  over  production,  and  an  excess  of  population  in  those 
departments,  had  entirely  changed  the  scene;  and  that  for  several  years  nei- 
ther capital  had  given  any  adequate  income,  nor  the  wages  of  labor  afforded 
a  decent  support  to  the  laborer.  The  period  which  I  fixed  on  as  this  crisis, 
was  the  spring  of  1826,  vvhen  a  period  of  six  months  of  riots,  of  burning  of 
cotton  mills,  and  destruction  of  machinery,  took  place.  There  was  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  price  of  manufactures  of  more  than  one-third  in  those  six 
months,  from  \vhch  they  have  never  recovered:  on  the  contrary,  they  have 
generally  continued  to  fall  still  lower.  This  fact  will  sufficiently  account  for 
the  business  of  manufacturing  being  comparatively  profitable  from  1816  to 
1824,  under  a  moderate  tariff,  without  its  following  at  all  that  the  same  duty 
would  be  an" adequate  protection  now.  As  this  view  is  very  important,  I  must 
beg  to  lay  before  the  committee  what  must  be  considered,  I  think,  full  con- 
firmation of  it.  It  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Atwood,  a  highly  respectable 
banker  of  Birmingham,  and  a  member  of  Parliament,  before,  the  committee  of 
Parliament,  appointed'io  consider  the  expediency  of  renewing  the  charter  of  the 
Bank  of  England.  It  may  be  observed  that  Mr.  Atwood  is,  in  one  respect,  a 
theorist.  He  witnessed  the  prosperity  of  Eudind  during  the  suspension  of 
specie  payments,  and  the  change  which  took  piuce  on  supplying  the  place  of 
the  small  notes  with  gold,  and  attributes  the  change  to  that  cause.  I  do  not 
agree  with  him;  but  as  to  the  fact  of  the  general  distress,  there  cannot  be  a 
better  witness.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  his  examination: 

"  Has  capital  been  invested  in  your  neighborhood  lately?  Within  the  last 
five  or  six  months,  when  the  iron-masters  and  manufacturers  generally  are  all 
going  to  ruin,  and  are  in  a  state  that  I  do  not  like  to  describe,  because  we  all 
feel  the  painfulness  of  it;  they  are  many  of  them  still  enlarging  their  works, 
not  to  partake  of  profit,  but  to  prolong  the  path  to  ruin,  by  diminishing  their 
general  charges. 

"  In  that  case,  of  course,  the  depression  of  trade  bears  much  heavier  upon 
those  who  are  not  in  a  condition  so  to  augment  their  works — much  heavier. 

"Must  not  that  be  one  principal  cause  of  the  distress  that  prevails  with 
you  now,  and  is  it  not  very  much  confined  to  that  class  of  people?  It  is  not 
confined;  the  distress  is  like  the  atmosphere,  among  all  working  classes  and 
trading  classes  in  England. 

"  Do  you  mean  without  exception?  I  say  without  exception,  although  I 
know  that  extreme  difficulty  exists  in  getting  at  this  truth:  for  I  myself  feel 
great  pain  in  stating  it;  but  my  opinion  is,  most  decidedly*  that  all  trade  in 
England  has,  within  the  last  seven  years,  been  carried  on  at  a  positive  loss, 
except  ivhere  speculators  have  now  and  then  made  a  projit. 

*'  And  you  think  that  the  effect  of  that  distress  has  been  to  increase  produc- 
tion? In  some  trades,  unquestionably. 

"  How  is  that  consistent  with  an  answer  you  gave,  that  you  thought  that  all 
consumption  depended  upon  the  increase  of  production,  and  that  the  increase 
of  production  would  tend  to  the  prosperity  of  the  trade?  The  tvages  of  labor 
of  the  unhappy  laborers  are  paid  at  half  the  price;  the  consequence  oj  which 
is,  that  though  they  ivork  sixteen  hours  a  day  in  some  trades,  they  do  not 
get  so  great  a  reward  in  exchange  as  when  they  worked  twelve  hours  a  day. 

*'  Then  you  do  not  think  that  the  increase  of  production  alone  will  tend  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  country?  Not  unless  it  is  at  high  prices;  it  is  the  plenty 
of  money  that  makes  prosperity. 

"  Then  a  plenty  of  money,  raising  the  profits  of  Ihe  people,  is  what  you 
think  is  to  increase  the  prosperity  of  the  country?  Unquestionably,  I  believe 
nothing  else  will  do  so;  I  mean  by  that,  not  a  wild  increase  of  money,  but 
such  an  increase  of  money  as  will  be  sufficient  to  raise  the  prices  of  property 
and  labor  above  the  level  of  the  fixed  charges  which  the  law  and  the  habits 
of  the  country  impose  upon  production. 


26 

'*  Is  (he  production  of  the  country  greater  or  less  than  it  was  seven  years 
ago?  In  some  instances  it  is  greater,  but  in  others  it  is  less.  It  is  greater, 
by  the  inordinate  toils  of  some  classes  of  men;  and  less,  by  the  total  want  of 
employment,  and  the  slate  of  half  employment  of  other  classes  of  men. 

"  In  the  aggregate,  should  you  say  that  it  is  greater  or  less?  It  is  less. 
The  aggregate  productions,  now,  I  consider  are  less  than  they  have  been  for 
the  last  seven  years. 

"  Do  you  think  the  Aggregate  capital  employed  in  production  is  less  than  it 
was  a  few  years  ago?  I think  there  is  little  or  no  capital  employed  in  pro- 
ductive power  now;  the  capital  is  annihilated,  considered  as  money. 

"  Can  there  be  production  without  capital  employed  in  production?  The 
capital  is  annihilated;  it  consists  of  brick  and  mortar,  machinery  and  engines, 
which  are  almost  worthless.  I  know  one  case  of  a  cotton  mill,  which  cost, 
seven  years  ago,  thirty-Jive  thousand  pounds,  that  was  sold  by  auction  a  fort- 
night ago  for  five  thousand  pounds. 

"  Is  the  food  and  raiment  annihilated,  with  which  the  laborer  is  maintained? 
The  capital  I  consider  to  be  the  buildings,  and  machinery,  and  dead  stock,  and 
implements  and  tools.  I  know  a  case,  in  Birmingham,  of  valuable  tools  and 
implements  of  a  brass  foundry,  which  cost,  seven  years  ago,  one  thousand 
five  hundred  and  sixty  pounds,  which  sold  a  few  weeks  ago  for  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five,  pounds. 

"  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  buildings  and  implements  for  producing  the 
manufacture  are  not  in  existence?  They  are  in  existence,  but  they  are  worth 
almost  nothing  at  all. 

"  Within  what  period  do  you  consider  that  the  capital  invested  in  manu- 
factures has  been  annihilated?  In  the  last  seven  years. 

"  Has  there  been  no  fresh  capital  invested  in  manufactures?  No;  except 
in  the  manner  I  have  described,  in  the  desperate  struggles  of  men  trying  to 
escape  from  ruin. 

"  You  consider,  then,  that  no  capitalists  have  invested  their  capital  in  ma- 
nufactories, with  a  view  to  productive  returns  within  the  last  seven  years? 
I  am  certain  of  it. 

"  Is  there  any  increase  in  the  cotton  manufacture  within  the  last  seven 
years?  The  destruction  of  one  man  makes  a  rise  of  another.  In  some  cases, 
in  the  cotton  trade,  immense  mills  have  been  sold,  or  let.  for  a  fifth  of  their 
value;  and  out  of  that  destruction,  a  new  tradesman,  coming  in  unshackled, 
sometimes  contrives  to  exist,  but  not  to  make  a  profit. 

"  Does  not  a  branch  of  manufacture  sometimes  establish  itself  in  a  new 
part  of  the  country,  to  the  very  serious4  injury  of  property  in  places  where  it 
formerly  existed?  I  have  known  nothing  of  that  kind  within  the  last  seven 
years.  /  see  every  one  shrinking  from  manufactures;  every  one  that  can 
draw  out  one-tenth  part  of  his  capital  gradually  does  it,  but  1  have  seen  no 
determination  of  capital  into  any  trade  within  the  last  seven  years;  on  the 
contrary,  I  have  made  it  a  point,  within  the  last  seven  years,  of  asking  the 
question,  and  I  am  sure  I  have  asked  it  of  a  thousand  well-informed  trades- 
men, whether  they  knew  of  any  branch  of  industry  existing  in  England,  in 
which  a.  prudent  man  of  industrious  habits,  with  ten  thousand  pounds  in  his 
pocket,  and  of  competent  knowledge,  would  be  justified  in  embarking  his 
capital;  and  I  have  never  met  with  but  one  single  instance  in  which  that 
question  has  been  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  that  single  in&tance  was  a 
Manchester  gentleman;  and,  when  I  came  to  cross-examine  him,  he  broke 
down. 

"  You  have  stated  that  the  fixed  capital  of  the  country  is  absolutely  anni- 
hilated? Yes,  I  consider  it  so,  as  convertible  into  money. 

"You  have  stated,  also,  that  in  many  instances  capital  has  changed 
hands?  Capital  which  was  worth  one  hundred  thousand  pounds  has  fallen 
in  some  cases  down  to  five  thousand  pounds;  that  five  thousand  pounds  gets 
into  new  hands,  and  enables  the  new  man  to  carry  on  the  machinery  and  the 
trade  till  another  failure  drives  him  to  sell  it  for  two  thousand  pounds;  and 
so  there  seems  no  limit  to  the  depression  in  progress. 


27 

u  When  do  you  consider  that  process  commenced  of  the  destruction  of 
capital?  In  the  autumn  of  1825.  It  commenced  in  the  first  place  in  1816, 
and  then  it  was  changed  in  1817  and  1818;  then  it  commenced  again  in  1819, 
and  went  on  till  1822;  and  then  it  changed  again,  and  prosperity  came  till 
1825." 

•  Now,  sir,  this  is  the  state  of  things  against  which  cur  own  manufacturers 
would  have  to  contend  on  opening  our  ports  at  a  small  ad  valorem  duly.  And 
in  this  conviction  I  cannot  avoid  making  a  short  extract  from  the  examina- 
tion of  Mr.  Rothschild,  the  celebrated  banker,  before  the  same  committee.  I 
cannot  but  recommend  the  remarks  of  this  practical  man  to  the  theoretical 
supporters  of  the  system  of  free  trade. 

"  If  the  exchanges  be  in  the  long  run  almost  invariably  in  favor  of  this 
country,  must  not  that  be  because  there  is  a  considerable  balance  owing  from 
other  countries  to  this?  Yes. 

"  How  do  you  consider  that  there  is  a  considerable  balance  owing  from  other 
countries  to  this?  Because  England  is  the  place  of  settlement  for  the  whole 
world;  what  is  wanting  in  India,  in  the  Brazils,  &c.  gets  settled  here;  and  se- 
condly, suppose  you  import  iron  from  Sweden,  if  you  receive  one  thousand 
pounds  worth  of  iron  and  manufacture  it,  you  will  then  get  ten  thousand 
pounds  for  it,  and  then,  when  it  is  manufactured,  it  is  sent  to  all  the  world. 
Suppose  you  get  cotton  from  America,  the  cotton  costs  there  three  pence  or 
six  pence  a  pound,  but  when  it  is  manufactured,  that  pound  of  cotton  is  worth 
four  times  as  much.  In  the  regular  course  of  things,  the  exchange  with  every 
country  must  be  in  favor  of  this. 

**  If  your  opinion  be  true,  that  if  there  were  no  importation  of  corn  into 
this  country,  and  if  there  were  no  foreign  loans  wanted  from  this  country,  the 
exchanges  would  always  be  in  favor  of  this  country,  must  not  it  inevitably  fol- 
low that  all  the  gold  and  silver  in  the  world  must  come  to  this  country?  It 
will  tend  to  come  here. 

"  Must  not  there  be  some  counteracting  check?  Yes;  if  there  was  not, 
the  world  could  not  go  on;  if  we  had  not  sometimes  importations  of  corn, 
and  sometimes  foreign  loans  wanted,  1  do  not  know  how  the  people  on  the 
continent  could  live. 

*'  You  have  taken  into  consideration  the  commodities  that  go  out,  but  have 
you  taken  into  consideration  the  wine  and  other  articles  brought  here  for  con- 
sumption? If  it  were  not  for  those  things,  I  do  not  know  what  would  become 
of  the  people  abroad. 

"  Does  not  what  you  have  stated  prove  that  there  is  a  gradual  impoverish- 
ment of  every  other  country  in  the  world?  I  do  not  Jcnow  that;  because, 
you  must  consider  the  quantity  of  gold  we  receive  from  the  mining  countries. 
We  bought  lately  in  Paris  eight  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling  of  gold, 
which  came  from  the  Dey  of  Algiers,  that  was  locked  up  in  his  cellar,  and  did 
nobody  any  good. 

"  If  other  countries  are  not  able  to  pay  their  debts  to  us,  by  sending  to  us 
the  commodities  they  produce,  but  are  obliged  to  send  us  gold,  must  they  not 
be  in  a  state  of  gradual  impoverishment?  Certainly;  and  what  is  the  conse- 
quence? The  result  is,  that  we  always  make  a  loan  when  they  get  very  poor; 
they  always  come  for  a  loan  of  five  or  ten  millions,  or  whatever  they  want." 

Before  I  take  my  seat,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  few  words  to  say  in  reply 
to  the  honorable  member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  from  Ten- 
nessee, [MR.  POLK:]  that  gentleman  informed  us  that  the  Committee  had 
fully  examined  into  the  matter;  and  that  the  bill  would  do  the  manufacturer 
ample  justice;  that  its  only  effect  would  be  to  take  away  a  part  of  the  enor- 
mous profits  which  they  were  now  making,  and  put  them  on  a  par  with  the  rest 
of  the  community.  I  confessl  was  somewhat  curious  to  see  how  this  position 
was  to  be  maintained;  and  I  will  not  conceal  my  surprise — my  utter  astonish- 
ment, when  he  announced  to  us  that  the  evidence  was  extracted  from  docu  • 
ments  furnished  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  a  resolution  of  the  last 
session  of  Congress,  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  this  House  with  information; 
now  in  the  process  of  printing,  and  which  the  committee  obtained  from  the 


printer  of  this  House,  partly  in  sheets  and  partly  in  manuscript,  but  none  of 
which  has  been  seen  by  a  single  member  of  this  House.  Yes,  sir,  it  sems  the 
manufacturers  have  been  tried,  and  convicted  in  secret  conclave,  by  the  holy 
inquisition  of  this  committee— by  confessions  extorted  from  themselves — and 
all  this  not  only  without  being  heard,  but  without  being  present!  They  have 
been  convicted  of  making  too  much  money.  And,  for  this  crime,  this  House 
is  called  on  to  perform  execution.  And  the  gentleman  has  actually  chided  us 
for  the  delay  which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  state  that  there  was  any 
evidence  at  all  in  the  case. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  what  is  that  evidence?  In  the  first  place,  he  states  that 
many  of  the  agents  declined  answering  the  question,  what  were  the  profits? 
All  these  are  condemned  in  mass  for  contumacy;  "  the  inference  is,  therefore, 
most  strongly  drawn,  that  they  could  well  bear  a  modification  'of  duties  ana 
still  realize  a  fair  profit."  To  be  sure  one  agent  gives  the  reasons  assigned  by 
many  manufacturers;  "  as  not  willing  to  hazard  an  opinion  on  a  subject  they 
have  not  viewed  in  all  its  bearings."  Another  agent  says,  "  they  generally  de- 
clined," or,  "  we  make  little  or  nothing."  However,  he  says  they  have  fur- 
niihed  evidence  enough  to  condemn  the  whole  body.  Ana  what  is  it  ?  In 
the  State  of  Vermont,  Moulton  and  Cummins,  in  a  woollen  factory,  make  a 
profit  of  forty  per  cent,  on  twenty-two  thousand  dollars;  J.  Powers  makes 
fifteen  ;  N.  B.  Hazen  makes  twelve  per  cent.;  an  iron  foundry  yields  fifty- 
four  per  cent.  So  much  for  woollens  and  iron! 

Then,  as  to  the  cotton  manufacturer,  we  have  the  following  from  one  of  the 
agents: 

'*  It  is  well  known  that  Maine  has  not  many  large  manufacturing  establish- 
ments of  any  kind.  In  that  portion  of  the  State  which  I  visited  or  examined, 
I  found  but  two  cotton  factories;  one  at  Winthrop,  in  the  county  of  Kennebec, 
and  the  other  at  Gardiner,  in  the  same  county.  The  agent  of  the  former  very 
readily  answered  all  the  inquiries  put  to  him,  within  his  power  to  answer;  the 
result  of  which  will  be  found  on  sheet  No.  1,  accompanying  this;  but  the  di- 
rectors of  the  Gardiner  factory  declined  answering  any  of  them,  although 
twice  called  upon  by  me,  and  once  written  to,  on  the  subject.  I,  however, 
found,  by  inquiry,  that  their  operations  are  about  one-third  more  than  those  at 
Winthrop;  and,  owing  to  a  favorable  location  and  other  facilities  for  carrying 
on  their  business,  their  profits  must  have  been,  during  the  year  ending  Sep- 
tember last,  fully  twenty-jive  per  cent."  The  agent  guesses  the  profits  at 
Gardiner  must  have  been  twenty-five  percent.,  because  a  factory  at  Winthrop 
made  "  about  twenty  per  cent."  Now,  sir,  I  happen  to  know  that  the  factory 
at  Winthrop  was  sold,  some  years  ago,  by  the  corporation  to  whom  it  belonged, 
for  a  very  small  part  of  the  cost;  leaving  large  debts  unpaid,  and  which  re- 
main unpaid  to  this  day.  The  gentleman  then  displays  manuscript  documents: 
No.  150,  fifteen  percent.;  No.  149,  twenty  per  cent.;  No.  134,  twenty-five 
percent.;  No.  something,  fifty  per  cent.;  but,  on  being  questioned  to  what 
business  it  related,  it  turns  out  to  be  saddlery.  The  gentleman  proceeds — 
here  are  the  returns;  any  gentleman  can  examine  them  for  himself.  And  on 
such  ex  parte,  imperfect,  and  anonymous  testimony,  we  are  called  on,  without 
an  opportunity  to  examine  it,  to  settle  this  most  delicate  question. 

Most  of  the  testimony  quoted  consists  in  the  opinions  of  the  agents  ap- 
pointed to  collect  facts — appointed  to  collect  facts,  they  furnish  opinions! 

Mr.  Bronson,  of  Connecticut,  thinks  the  cotton  manufacturers  make  use  of 
a  bad  argument  against  the  reduction  of  duty  on  cottons.  Another  agent  an- 
swers an  objection,  which  has  been  made,  very  satisfactorily  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Tennessee.  It  is  this:  "  The  apprehension  in  which  so  many  of  the 
cotton  manufacturers  concur,  that  a  foreign  article,  equal  in  appearance  but 
inferior  in  quality  with  theirs,  might  compete  successfully  with  theirs,  appears 
to  me  [says  the  agent]  quite  groundless.  Such  an  article  would,  in  my  opin- 
ion, find  its  market  value  controlled  by  quality." 

And  for  such  opinions  the  public  money  is  paid .  Sir,  I  will  not  waste  time  in 
answering  such  evidence  or  such  opinions.  I  will  only  observe,  that  the 
period  fixed  on  for  making  these  returns — the  year  ending  September,  1831— 


29 

comprised  a  period  of  great  over-trade— of  high  prices — of  great  profits,  real 
or  apparent,  in  every  branch  of  business;  it  forms  no  criterion  of  tne  average, 
or  subsequent  state  of  things.  I  stated  myself,  at  an  early  period  of  the  last 
session,  that,  in  some  few  cases,  manufacturing  profits  had  amounted  to  ten 
per  cent.,  for  six  months;  and  yet  the  same  establishments  have  made  less 
than  four  per  cent  for  the  last  six  months;  in  fact  a  great  part  of  the  sup- 
posed profits  of  1831  have  proved  mere  moon-shine,  having  been  swept  away 
by  the  numerous  failures  of  1832.  I  beg  leave  here  to  refer  to  a  letter  from  a 
mercantile  house,  in  New  York,  of  the  highest  respectability,  which  I  pre- 
sented to  this  House,  during  the  last  session,  in  connexion  with  this  topic. — 
(See  note  A,  at  the  end.) 

I  have  a  single  word  to  say  in  reference  to  the  questions  propounded  by  the 
Secretary,  as  to  profits,  without  expressing  any  opinion  as  to  (he  propriety  of 
the  inquiry.  I  do  say  it  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  difficulty  and  delicacy  to 
say  what  are  the  actual  nett  profits  of  a  manufacturing  establishment. 

There  is  no  rule  that  I  know  of,  what  allowance  should  be  made  for  wear 
and  tear  and  depreciation  of  machinery;  it  is  a  problem  wholly  unsettled.  So 
much  machinery  is  thrown  out  of  use  by  new  improvements,  that  there  is  a 
constant  tendency  to  overrate  the  profits  beyond  the  final  result.  I  cannot 
state  a  stronger  instance  of  this  than  in  respect  to  the  Waltham  company; 
certainly,  I  suppose,  the  most  profitable  concern  that  has  existed  in  the  United 
States.  They  divided,  for  a  series  of  years,  about  twelve  or  thirteen  per  cent, 
on  the  average;  making  what  was  considered  a  sufficient  reserve  for  wear  and 
tear,  &c.  And  yet,  in  1830,  in  making  a  critical  valuation  of  their  property, 
of  their  original  capital  of  six  hundred  thousand  dollars  they  could  only  find 
four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  or  seventy-five  cents  to  the  dollar. 

Sir,  some  of  the  questions  from  the  Treasury  Department  were  of  a  charac- 
ter not  easy  to  answer;  for  example:  If  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  should  cause 
you  to  adandon  your  business,  how  would  you  employ  your  capital?  What  is 
the  average  profit  of  money  or  capital  in  the  United  States?  Who  can  answer 
this  question?  Certainly  I  cannot.  So  much  depends  on  the  security  of  the 
return.  We  know  very  well  that  four  and  a  half  per  cent,  stock  of  the  United 
States  would  bring  a  premium.  In  trade  or  manufactures,  I  suppose,  10  per  cent 
would  not  be  considered  unreasonable.  Gentlemen  from  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and 
Louisiana,  tell  me  that  any  amount  of  money  can  be  loaned,  in  that  region, 
on  the  best  security,  on  bond  and  mortgage,  at  ten  to  twelve  per  cent.  And 
gentlemen  of  the  highest  authority,  from  Louisiana,  inform  me  that  they  will 
insure  twenty  per  cent,  in  cotton  planting,  so  long  as  cotton  will  sell  for  ten 
cents  a  pound. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  after  excepting  against  want  of  skill — 
borrowed  capital — bad  machinery — bad  debts — fire  and  floods,  lays  down  this 
proposition :  "  The  general  proposition  which  I  affirm  to  be  established  by 
the  whole  body  of  this  testimony,  is,  that  in  all  those  establishments,  where 
there  is  skill,  real  capital,  improved  machinery,  and  proper  economy  and 
vigilance  in  their  management,  they  have  proved  to  be  more  profitable  than 
any  other  regular  and  steady  business." 

Now,  sir,  I  join  issue  with  the  gentleman;  I  deny  the  fact  in  toto,  and 
challenge  him  to  make  it  good.  Does  he  know  better  than  the  parties  them- 
selves? Sir,  I  have  in  my  hand  a  statement  made  up  by  a  gentleman,  for 
whose  correctness  I  can  vouch,  in  the  shape  of"  an  account  current,  showing 
the  result  of  an  original  investment  of  fifty-one  thousand  dollars,  in  the  dif- 
ferent establishments  at  Lowell,  since  1821 — and  certainly  no  establishments 
stand  higher — showing  that,  taking  the  price  at  which  those  stocks  are  selling, 
his  return  is  something  short  of  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  per  annum.  The 
price  of  the  stocks  is  in  itself  a  very  safe  criterion;  there  are  none  worth  par 
in  the  market.  I  have  the  last  semi-annual  returns  of  profits  from  the  fol- 
lowing companies:  The  Lowell,  making  negro  cloths,  capital  four  hundred 
thousand  dollars;  profits,  between  four  and  five  per  cent.;  the  Hamilton, 
capital  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars,  barely  four  percent.;  the  Merrimack 
Company,  capital  one  million  five  hundred  thousand  dollars,  fifty-nine 


80 

thousand  dollars  short  of  four  per  cent.  As  to  the  effect  of  this  bill,  which 
the  gentleman  considers  so  safe,  I  have  only  to  state,  that  the  mere  rumor 
that  this  bill  might  pass,  caused  a  large  quantity  of  the  stock  of  the  latter  com- 
pany to  be  sold  at  twenty  per  cent,  discount.  I  have  also  in  my  hand,  a  letter 
from  Messrs.  Lawrence*&  Stone,  of  Boston,  owning  one  of  the  best  conduct- 
ed woollen  establishments  in  the  country,  stating  they  had  just  made  up  their 
account  for  the  year,  having  manufactured  two  hundred  thousand  dollars' 
worth  of  cassimeres,  and  showing  an  actual  loss  of  over  four  thousand  dollars; 
and  yet  they  did  a  very  good  business  in  1831.  I  could  multiply  this  evi- 
dence to  any  extent;  but  trust  I  have  satisfied  the  committee  that  this  interest 
is,,  in  fact,  at  this  very  moment,  instead  of  being  unusually  profitable,  very 
much  depressed.  As  an  evidence  of  the  effect  of  our  hasty  tampering  with 
this  matter,  I  must  beg  to  read  the  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  Lowell, 
a  place  of  twelve  thousand  inhabitants,  depending  on  the  cotton  manufacture, 
dated  13th  January: 

**  Lowell  is  dull  enough;  no  land  speculations  are  going  forward,  and  no 
prospects  of  new  buildings  yet  being  built.  Several  of  the  speculators  and 
builders,  who  are  without  capital  (and  this  is  the  case  with  most)  have  failed, 
and  more  must  follow;  no  money  can  be  hired  now  on  real  estate  in  Lowell, 
and  rents,  which  have  been  very  high,  are  coming  down.  As  yet  it  so  happens 
that  every  man  who  has  failed,  is  of  the  true  Jackson  party,  and  the  suppor- 
ters of  the  President  in  this  place  are  now  pretty  well  satisfied,  by  woeful 
experience,  that  he  is  not  the  great  friend  to  protection  which  they  have  before 
insisted  upon  his  being." 

After  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  will  this  bill  satisfy  South  Carolina?  No,  sir, 
not  at  all.  She  has  sworn,  by  all  the  saints  in  the  calendar,  "  that  a  protect- 
ing tariff  shall  no  longer  be  enforced  within  the  limits  of  South  Carolina," 
and  no  human  power  shall  drive  lier  from  her  position.  Does  this  bill  ex- 
tinguish the  principle  of  protection?  By  no  means.  It  will  prostrate  great 
interests,  but  it  will  not  meet  the  position  taken  by  South  Carolina. 

No  friend  of  South  Carolina  would  wish  to  see  her  satisfied  with  this  bill. 
I  have  too  much  respect  for  her  to  believe  she  would  be  satisfied  by  it. 
What  would  be  the  inference,  and  what  would  be  said  by  the  world  ?  South 
Carolina  talked  loud  of  principle;  but  she  was  only  bragging  high;  her  ob- 
ject was  to  get  a  little  filthy  lucre,  and  she  was  satisfied  with  it.  I  shoXild  be 
sorry  to  see  South  Carolina  so  disgraced.  No  doubt  she  must  retrace  her 
steps — she  may  do  so  with  credit  to  herself — she  may  yield  to  the  force  of 
public  opinion.  I  would  give  her  time  for  reflection.  So  far  as  the  real 
interests  of  South  Carolina  are  concerned,  I  would  save  her  from  herself. 
I  fully  believe  that  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  lessen  the  value  of  her  great 
staple  of  cotton  nearly  or  quite  a  cent  a  pound. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Chairman,!  have  satisfied  myself,  if  not  others,  that  we 
have  no  surplus  revenue  to  reduce;  that  this  bill  is  destructive,  ruinous,  un- 
principled in  its  character;  that  its  passage  would  alienate  the  affections  of  a 
great  body  of  the  people  from  the  Government,  and  tend  to  disturb  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  the  Union. 


31 


REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000611  037     3 


NOTE  (A.) 


NEW  YORK,  June  4,  1832. 
NATHAN  APPLETOX,  Esq. 

DEAR  SIR:  Your  letter,  dated  1st  instant,  has  been  duly  received,  and  we 
now  have  the  pleasure  to  hand  you  comparative  statement  of  prices  of  cotton 
goods  in  this  market  as  compared  with  last  year.  The  first  column  repre- 
sents the  prices  of  last  year,  and  the  other  those  of  this,  for  the  same  article. 
Six  printing  establishments  have  already  failed  in  consequence  of  the  extreme 
low  prices  at  which  their  goods  have  been  selling,  and  several  of  the  large 
ones  have  reduced  the  quantity  of  their  work  one  half.  British  prints  have 
been  imported  this  season  in  unusually  large  quantities,  and  have  been  forced 
into  the  market  at  ruinous  prices;  many  of  them  at  a  greater  loss  than  the 
whole  amount  of  the  duties,  and  we  should  think  the  average  of  the  auction 
sales,  when  the  greater  portion  have  been  sold,  \yould  exhibit  a  loss  of  full 
four  to  five  cents  a  yard.  Pantaloon  stuffs,  of  British  and  French  fabric,  have 
been  largely  imported,  and  have  been  selling  at  a  reduction  in  price  of  full 
thirty-five  per  cent.,  and  at  a  very  heavy  loss  on  cost  of  importation.  The 
great  struggle,  which  has  been  carried  on  between  the  foreign  and  the  domes- 
tic manufacturers,  for  possession  of  the  market,  has  been  the  principal  cause 
of  the  reduction  of  prices,  by  creating  an  overstock  which  must,  for  some 
time  to  come,  if  not  effectually,  keep  down  the  prices.  Sattinets  is  an  article 
of  considerable  consumption,  and  composed  of  cotton  and  wool.  It  has  fallen 
off  in  price,  on  the  finer  qualities,  twenty-five  per  cent.,  and  on  the  coarse, 
thirty-five  per  cent. 

Flannels  are  now  selling  at  a  lower  price  than  they  ever  sold  in  this  market, 
and  we  see  no  prospect  whatever  of  an  improvement.  The  quantity  manu- 
factured is  ample  tor  the  consumption  of  the  whole  country.  Blue  broad- 
cloths, such  as  sold  last  year  at  three  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents,  are  now 
selling  at  two  dollars.  Mixed  cloths,  such  as  sold  last  year  at  two  dollars 
and  seventy-five  cents,  will  not  now  bring  more  than  one  dollar  and  sixty- 
two  and  a  half  cents.  Black  and  fancy  colored  cloths  are  in  about  same 
proportion,  and  the  supply  is  abundant. 

BURNS,  HALLIBURTON,  &  Co. 


Comparative  Prices. 

1831.  1832. 

Brown  shirtmgs,  8|  6 

"      sheetings,  11  9 

Hambden  twilled  jeans,      15  10 

Merrimack  plate  prints,     19  13 

Dover  do.  16  12* 

Merrimack  blues,  183  16 

Rouen  cassimere,  26  14 

Hamilton  drillings,  14  12 

"        printed  stripes,   25  16  to  18 

Printing  cloth,  8*  6 


1833. 


cents. 


14* 
10 


